me
et
utr
Ψ
BOK τος
rata tavatetatitatas
Natta ase
Kx ann
ak
hrs ares
ἊΝ i
‘ S83 δ
Stas OOK
Seiata tater
ἐν
oA,
a.
ὮΝ ONS
ee
x
+
-
he
ἐς
ie
. 2
σ᾿
~~
+
7
᾽ Ψ
Ke ἣν
Ψ
ARSE)
she es ἐλ
+
Ὗ AY
ete
~~
Ἄ
%,
PM ISS IK
peerers
ΗΝ
a
<< A AA)
th
piers
Ω
fe
4 ois,
Keke
rs
i
ou
>,
aX Μ
ase Se ΤῊ oh sk ot ah ee
ees eesti
; ἐκ ες Ἄν 77,3
>)
A.
tet
SAS
κων
a“
feng
OS
Pia
Aa
9
7,3 es (4)
+ PPP?
Mee) 24) G ὌΝ O<
FPP IPP PS
4 Ἄν
ofp? oF) γῆν
Nese νον
>: Fn? y75P5:
Se >
ae
©
ον.
Resta!
OX
aah
ae.
Ὡς
MS
9,
HD,
PLY. 8, >
KA?
(Se 54 54 54 os
BOOS
re
a
Seok
»“.
-
ἐν
?, SS
ἐδ δ᾽ > ε
ν ETE
BEd > Od 5654389694 9096 5
A
~~
i ἡ A
Ee ee
Dement
A A
EE >;
oe
SAE
Ὺ
ad Ὁ
con
(45
(34545
(S494 94 9406 chek 14 6
ζ (AAA AMOS > 4) [2
νυν $4 04 4 38 94 ὑ Ὁ ὁ ᾽ν, 2 ᾽ν
540454 SSA SESS Seeds SeSe545
HAM MEM LC Lod oh ood ὌΡΘΡΟΣ: ΡΝ
: anes
>e
>
ἐς
7
ἧς oh
~
>, ?, °°, ?.?.
etek:
δε εκ τε a ocne sted se dse
ὌΡΘΡΟΣ AERA
i ἐς ἐς LPS?) >
es
ἧς
ἐξ Σ
ea
hk,
ax
er
Ma!
ἣν
*
a
hye
Aya "
i
ye
Ae th thy Ἂς γ΄
ms
ns
ust
Stet:
Py
ἣν
ἔφ ΤΣ
ΟΣ
Foray
z
ΗΝ
[) OK 24
Oaks
Ah an χ ν
Pay?
2
we
Nf
ὃ re.
POP,
oe,
*)
a>
>
ὃν
᾿“«΄
Κι
Sst
P98:
ἐξ ςς
>
ae
(ας
»»-
ἂν Κις δος δι μὲς δὲ,
νὸς
row
Pom th, ae
PPP IP ὁ θυ ;
ἘΚ) >
9.9.0.9. te)
(A KK ὡς ESSE es
: 359) ARS ;
Ὁ, boo. ὁ, >. ὁ- 44 « - - 4 »»
pees * ? orate SK ᾿
. eS had - ἐς < eK Ory eS
>.
D>. >, < 9,0 PF, > > oor a>:
FPP, 9.9? "a PP PP oY,
᾽ν ἘΌΝ eee < MS i 0 Pyaar a?
4 :
ὡς
a
τὰς
rae
MH»
“ὡς Ἃς
“
<>
Lt
a ὡς
“τος
, Ls
eas
ae
>
tee)
«. ὦ τος A,
S68
Pyare: wd be 9595? (ἧς aes he ἜΗΝ ἐς [
SSS aera? area ra κα Sess ἐδ ἐς ἐκ
SSeS eS che ‘ ἀφ τς Ὁ dee
SIRs eM)
ἐξ if
<5 Pererbrarerarerer erp:
εν,
FSA ἐξα Le SLCC
2 ᾿
a.
Ke ᾽
Oe 6
MOE PLP LIEF,
Perea anateete
ox
2 ΡΝ
Cant ἘᾺΝ ~ as
“(Ω »ἐ- ε "ἧς
»-
ἘΣ aan ἡ Κοὰν ἡ
ABS se ie eee 0505950
eee een
CS
a“
mk.
~ lon tegen at
Oe A an ἃς οἰ,
ΟΝ
τς
CK ον
SSS chestetetais
OM AY
ieasecaecceetecs
ἮΝ Ahsan ee
ἐξ ἐν stots
ne ἧς, νῆς Ἂς ὦ
ΝΣ ns The
te ὃς ἐς ee et
ood, 53.6.9. 4
ees as Seeeicieseieeeea
>
sotncustosnattete ΤῊΝ
Me
Py A Ἂν ἢ
>
\
ae
n
ἣν eet
ce ἀν
tow
a a ae Ὁ
Ὗς
mvatatatetatg tata
sdasaxeaee tt
A ἃς νος es “-
Pe Oe, om
aa :
Tastes Mesto, Made?
sac
ἃ,
mene
Je
ba
“τς
Poe
OA)
(Sd Β
>,
>,
ERS
+;
A he
WA hs WA Phe pe lh
ted
rs
-"
et
a
x ret Ne!
x
᾿ς
Ἶ
πὰς
ν Ἢ νὰ eo ee ee a
Ἐν Ὁ τὰ ἢ:
hth ὃς Oke
he μὰν ὅς
My Ἂς μι Ὧν
oa ey
tre oe oe nd.
AREA
OK
x
ats
“2
Ὡς
to Ws
ett πον,
Notasten οὶ
RO γὴν μὲς
A.
Ἂς
a)
‘ah “ν"
ry
ot
ἼΩΝ ΟΝ ἦν ὃς
«ὗς ὯΝ
Loess
ts
* ‘
MK hs Da MOK Oe pK De
ὃς ὃς ψί ὃς
ιν»
on 0595! eri
a.
Mats
x
ae
*5°>
*
a,
“4
CALA
rast a,
+
_—
AAA
oy
; Tay
ee
Eta
be ν
»
Ἢ otek i
x eran + ψίνν he
SSO HGS esc
᾿ τ
ἤν
75! Ke
tt ss
ἘΣ ΜΝ gett
ΝᾺ Ὁ ὅν νος ἈΝ
otto
Ἂς ὡς ἃς Ἂς Ἃς.
AA
ὦ
᾿ >,
ἐξ ξ εξες ες ἐζάζις
OCOD
4 ἐς OP. >
aoe
t
‘ow
ete’
bestia ia
aA, SUT eee pe ap
ὺς
Ἂς Ὡς τς, ἧς ὡς μς
nh
{te >
τς
«Y ᾽ ars
SKS
ct
Cet 9
τ τ Pe nak. OK Pe
ὌΝ
rs
toe
>
>
ate
ee ὧν ι΄ Ὁ
APs
Nee op
τοῖς
ἐξ
a6
τὰς ἐς
Ε >
KEES
A
i
a hy
Se
a »
toe νοις
κα αίς
Serer er oroters
ores aes
rotetonets
ORCL Oe A dS ἜΗΝ
7.0.9, 050° 8b oe >, OA
ἐς ἘΚ OOK +>. $F $F:
AEROS SNES
δὰ ὑ ὦ ΑΝ ΚΟΥ πιῆ τον τ τυ akan HIN
otatettotatere ; Res ς Teepe OR MMOL RK KE
sraetaceeacns Ox Pidemeererbreeerevaterp. shsttgtetstedetetateestete τος SALA
vt ΤᾺ} ων > γι, Ψ
ΚΤ ΚΟΥ ς τς eer br are
RES ως Κρ
ὲ ese sat ens Pai ας ἐς ς ζγζν
τ᾿
«
δ Mai
BISHOP Β0Π1,5
WORKS ON THE TRINITY.
VOL. I.
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE CREED.
VOL. 1.
BISHOP BULL’S
WORKS ON THE TRINITY.
VOL. IL.
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE CREED.
VOL. IL
BISHOP BULL’S
WORKS ON THE TRINITY.
VOL. III.
JUDGMENT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH,
de. de.
λ ‘ Ὁ 4 +% 2
r
¥_* =
ΣΎ.
» 4 :
ἢ - ir.
< ᾿ ἊΝ
᾿ δ OL LET LET YO 1
‘OLAY, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL.
yer
yard : . “ἃ 18," >
Lib αἱ δος | ΟΝ Vato | he |
»-
~
THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE NECESSITY OF BELIEVING THAT
Fe ee ΡΨ eae ΡΎ
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IS VERY GOD;
sg aa ee
THE PRIMITIVE AND APOSTOLIC TRADITION
Δ ee a λα
- OF THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING
THE DIVINITY OF OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST;
AND
BRIEF ANIMADVERSIONS
ON A TREATISE OF MR. GILBERT CLERKE.
BY
GEORGE BULL, D.D.
2
Ν
; A PRIEST OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH,
AFTERWARDS LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID’S.
A NEW TRANSLATION. >
»Ἅ
VOL ΠΙ.
Ξ OXFORD:
: JOHN HENRY PARKER.
Ἐ M DCCC LY,
i”
τὴ
ite?
τ
“-"
Ww
ἐπ
~
re
ms
ye
_
CONTENTS.
PAGE
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES
ON THE NECESSITY OF BELIEVING THAT OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IS
VERY GoD: MAINTAINED IN OPPOSITION TO M. Simon EPISCOPIUS, =
AND OTHERS é 2 ; , x : ; ὶ see as ee
Tur PrimiItIvE anp Apostolic TRADITION OF THE DOCTRINE RECEIVED
IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, CONCERNING THE DIVINITY OF OUR
SaviouR JESUS CHRIST, SET FORTH, AND CLEARLY PROVED IN
OPPOSITION TO DANIEL ZWICKER, A PRUSSIAN, AND HIS RECENT
FOLLOWERS IN ENGLAND . - ; eae ΤῊΝ : Σ 5 . 205
Brier ANIMADVERSIONS ON A TREATISE OF Mr. GILBERT CLERKE, ENTITLED
ANTENICENISMUS, SO FAR AS IT UNDERTAKES TO GIVE A SHORT ANSWER .
to Dr. GeorGE Βυμ ΒΒ DEFENCE OF THE NICENE CREED ᾿. ay
. . 857
INDEXES . ; : R Ὰ δ Ὰ τ ἢ δ ‘
we.
ἘΝῚ τς sinilt kis ine Tea eee Re :
aga G ged Hos τῷ τς ἀπ ιν ΠΝ
ἘΣ | ἘΠῚ ὯᾺ fe: ¢ ali a wine =. ἂν pak a
; | ey ae ἀρεῖς ἍΝ
se a) a
| ae tos
rr
FA: ind πὸ τοῖς τ ih:
= *
wy τς Peden T une
abies. rat Tat ae Ps eine 3 CAN RR: Ma
4: Posen akete ΠῚ + ἕν ett 4 ashe:
ol atk ey Ys Bayete Raikes om
Yah
£
ae >
Tapia Da. sar we Coin ΧΕ,
ἃ ~ ͵
Peer
THE JUDGMENT
OF
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
OF THE
FIRST THREE CENTURIES
ON
THE NECESSITY OF BELIEVING
THAT
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IS VERY GOD:
MAINTAINED IN OPPOSITION TO
M. SIMON EPISCOPIUS, ayp ΟΤἸΉΒΒΒ.
BY
GEORGE BULL, D.D.
A PRIEST OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH,
AFTERWARDS
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID’'S.
a
7 ᾽
γα
Ὁ
4
be ‘ Jun, 4, 1694, é:
οι (ὦ.
ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER. [9]
WHILE 1 was occupied some time ago in reading the
Theological Institutes of M. Simon Episcopius, after having
read through the thirty-fourth chapter of book iv. section 2°,
I put together, for my own private use, or rather sketched
the first outline of, an answer to the arguments, by which
the learned author in that part of his work endeavoured to
prove, that the article touching the divine generation of the
Son of God our Saviour, of God the Father, before the
worlds’, was not by any means regarded in the primitive ' ante sw-
Churches as necessary to be believed in order to salvation ; ee
[so far indeed from it,| that those Churches held commu-
-nion with such as denied that article, and believed and
taught that Christ was a mere man, who had no existence
before [His birth of] the blessed Virgin. This short answer,
however, I not long since, at the request of some friends,
drew out more fully, and enlarged by additional matter;
adding also three entire chapters, in which I have, if I am
not mistaken, clearly refuted the opinion of Episcopius, both
by quotations from the primitive fathers, and from ecclesias-
tical history.
I will now briefly state what has induced me to consent to
the publication at last of this work, such as it is. During
the last few years, there have appeared here in England, [4]
several works, whose unprincipled authors have strained
every nerve to weaken and to overthrow the most important
article ἡ of our faith, whereon certainly Christianity hinges; 2 qooma
(1 mean the article concerning the Son of God being begotten κυριώτατον.
[Vol. i. p. 338.]
ΣΧ The assertion that the belief of the Divinity of our Lord
ADVERTISE-
MENT.
1 stoma-
cho.
2 inepta
deliria.
3 vetus
κράμβη.
4 quali-
buscunque
strophis.
[5]
5 scilicet.
6 vocife-
rantur.
of God the Father Himself before all worlds, very God of
very God, by whom all things were made, who for our salva-
tion became incarnate, and was made Man;) some of them
boldly defending the Arian, others the Samosatene, blasphemy.
Of these it would not be unjust in me to say, what that
eminent man Hieronymus Zanchius ” declared of the writings
of Leelius Socinus, Francis Dayid, Blandrata, and other
heretics of the same stamp, in his own time; “I have read,
[said he,] but with great disgust *, the silly ravings” of these
new Arians and Photinians; and this I can declare, that I
have met with nothing in their writings, which, to say the
least, has any of that acuteness, which often occurs in the
works of the ancient heretics. They are all either the old
matter ἡ, served up for the hundredth time, or new follies.”
To prevent, however, the triumph of these vain persons, and
the perversion of weak minds from Catholic truth by their
arts such as they are‘, they have been met by the writings
of some of our pious and learned countrymen, published on
the other side, who certainly on that account have deserved
the gratitude and praise of all good men. —
Meanwhile some have arisen, who have essayed to act
the part of mediators, forsooth, and promoters of peace in
this controversy, as well as to conciliate and bring together
parties most absolutely and utterly dissevered from and
opposed to each other, namely, the Catholic Church and
heretics; in other words, Christ and Belial. These persons,
whilst professing, and I hope sincerely, to hold and believe,
as Catholics do, the truth of the article respecting the Son .
of God being of one nature with [the Father], yet do not by
any means acknowledge the necessity of it: thinking, I
suppose ὅ, that it is sufficient to salvation, if one believe, any
how, in Jesus Christ, [as] the Son of God and Saviour of the
human race: and that it is not of much consequence, whether
you regard Him as a mere man and a created being, made
God and raised to divine honours simply by grace and adop-
tion, or as really, that is by nature, very God. This their
opinion they defend by arguments nearly the same as those,
which Episcopius employs, and which he borrowed from
Socinus. They are loud in their assertion °, that the Nicene
» In the Epistle Dedicatory of his Treatise on the Three Elohim. —
was not held to be necessary during the first three centuries. xi
Fathers first established the doctrine of the Consubstantiality
of the Son, and rashly denounced an anathema against such
as thought differently; that the primitive Church, on the
contrary, was far more moderate’, and, as became a most 'mitiorem.
tender mother, cherished in her bosom even those, who
believed, that Christ their Saviour was by nature but a mere
man; [an opinion,] which they go on to prove from the Creed
called the Apostles’, and from a well-known passage in Justin
Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. With such statements
almost every page of their books is filled. In the following
treatise; however, it has been clearly shewn how little to the -
point is what they adduce.
But the assertion of Episcopius, to which these writers
seem rashly to have given credit, and of which we have
undertaken the refutation, is of such a kind as that the man, [6]
who is so venturesome as to affirm it, must be considered
either not to have passed the very threshold of the writings
of the primitive fathers and ancient ecclesiastical history, or
at any rate to have written clean contrary to what he knew ? ? contra
[to be true]. The latter supposition charity forbids our reg
entertaining of Episcopius, and I am very far, myself, from sientiam.
entertaining it. Was he then but little versed in the records
of the ancient Church? But not even on this supposition will
he escape the charge of great temerity, for having so con-
fidently pronounced orf the opinion of the primitive Church,
(specially on a point of so vast importance,) without having
himself examined it; and for having in consequence com-
mitted a very grave outrage on the doctors, the bishops, the
confessors and the martyrs of the very best ages; as if for-
sooth they had been lukewarm, nay utterly cold, in the
defence of the greatest of all the articles of the Christian
religion. But the fact is this. Although he was a man of
unquestionably great ability, and in many respects possessed
learning of no ordinary kind, yet he but little consulted or
regarded, nay he actually despised, the writings of the ancient
fathers and doctors. Hear his reply to the Jesuit Wading’s
empty boast about Fathers and Councils; he frankly opens
his mind on the subject in these words*; “1 will here once
for all say what I think. You never shall drive me to that
* Reply to Wading’s Epist. on the Worship of Images, c. 1. [vol. i. p. 132.]
ΧΙ Episcopius’ authority on this point of little weight.
avvertise- drudgery’, friend Wading. I do not look for laurels in
CBee: laurel-cakes ’; nor do I envy the credit of the great reading
Pek ἢ and capacious memory of those, whose delight it is to be ever
pistrinum drifting and tossing on that ocean of Councils and fathers,
Sh mus- Spending therein all their leisure and all their industry.
taceo lau- For I set not’so great store on that, of which I might one
reolam non A :
quero, day repent.” With him then, you see, to apply oneself to
[7] the praiseworthy study and careful reading of the ancient
fathers and Councils is the same thing as “ looking for laurels
in laurel-cakes,” that is, (as Erasmus explains the adage,)
to endeavour to gain an inglorious and paltry fame from frivo-
lous pursuits; such [study], in his view, is nothing else than
to waste light and labour, and to do that of which one may
some time repent. Farther on, in the same passage, after he
had endeavoured, by certain weak arguments of his own, to
take away nearly all their authority and reputation from the
8 writings of the holy fathers, (with which appellation and title
of “ fathers,” commonly applied to them, he professes himself
to be displeased,) he at last concludes; ‘ This is the reason
why I do not bestow upon them” [that is, the writings of
the fathers] “any great pains.” :
Would, however, that he had here at least excepted the
fathers and writers of the first three centuries. If he had
only spent more time and attention in reading them, he
would, I am sure, have laboured in a Way, which neither he
nor the Church of Christ would ever have had reason to
regret. Never would he have undertaken to plead the cause
of Arians and Socinians to the extent of palliating, under
cover of the authority and views of the primitive Churches,
the doctrine which they have advanced concerning the Person
~ of our Saviour, as if it were ‘‘ perhaps ”’ an error, but certainly
not an heresy, although those Churches did all with a unani-
mous vote and judgment condemn it as a most pernicious
’heresim and deadly * heresy.
Si wid That this is so, you will, I think, find more than sufficiently
ac éwarg proved in the Dissertation I now present to you; which may
Pp. indeed be regarded as a Supplement to my Defence of the
[8] Nicene Creed, published some years ago® For as in that
¢ [The Defensio Fidei Nicene was published in 1685; the Judicium Eccle-
sie Catholice in- 1695. |
This work a supplement to that on the Nicene Creed. xiii
work I vindicated the Nicene Creed itself from the calum-
nies of its heretical assailants, and fully and clearly demon-
strated, that the doctrine which was delivered in it, is quite
in harmony with the faith of the Catholic Church of the first
three centuries; (to which no one of the opponents of the
holy synod has yet, so far as I know, returned an answer 5)
so in this treatise, I maintain and defend the anathematizing
fr clause’, which is annexed to that Creed. - For hence it clearly ! ἀναθεμα-
| becomes apparent, that it was agreeably to the sentiment of ἦν "Α
the primitive Churches, which existed even from the very
times of the Apostles, that the Nicene fathers added to their
confession of faith the sanction of the following anathema ¢;
“ But as for those who say, There was a time when He was
not ; and, Before He was begotten He was not; and, He was
made out of what existed not; or who assert that the Son of
God is of another hypostasis or essence; or that He was
created, or is capable of change, or alteration, them the
Catholic and Apostolic Church doth anathematize.” This
judgment of the universal Church of Christ, of all ages, will
certainly be reverenced by every man of piety and sobriety,
who will in consequence’ be on his guard against, and from 2 adeo.
his whole heart abhor, the God-denying * heresy of the Samo- 3 ἀρνησι-
satenes, no less than of the Arians. And this I earnestly θέφ'
advise you, my reader, (whosoever you are,) to do, and so
bid you farewell.
-
4 rods δὲ λέγοντας ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὸν αἰὼν), ὅτε οὐκ Fv, ἀλλοτρίους οἷδεν 7
υἱὸν, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως, καὶ μὴ ἐκ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. [See the Def. Nic.
τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ (ὅτι) ἦν χρόνος ποτὲ (Ὦ Creed, Introduction, p. 18.}
ν “αὶ
=
a ad
+) ἣν 7
if ion
Ἦν ες ‘eat Δ
af oe
ὩΣ ἘΠ]
%
β τί Set
vary
dia
RU, ὍΣ
Ἀ Sl
"χων οι ΣῪ
+ ay OWE h ree 44 3 4 its*
ἢ Fite ms Τῆι att a
| tess Ἂν
7 ate
ye tt AB ὅν FAY
sa ἄς δὴ ee eX ἐλὰν bal
(ata δ ye hit fe “ih
Te pepe
ἐἦ i
INDEX OF THE CHAPTERS.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION . .. : ; ‘tec ; : ° : ee
CHAPTER 1...
The testimonies of the primitive Fathers are adduced, who assert that the
Belief of the Article concerning the Divinity of our Saviour, is abso-
lutely necessary to salvation | - Ἶ ; - ; : ate
“ CHAPTER II.
Of those who, in the first century of Christianity, impugned the doctrine
of the Gospel, respecting Christ as God and Man . - Ξ ‘ - 22
CHAPTER III.
On those who, in the second and third centuries, denied the true Divinity
of Jesus Christ. Abies Eh Σ pee ᾿ Ξ ot . 55
CHAPTER IV.
On the Creeds of the Primitive Church: and first, of the first and most-
ancient Creed, and the Expositions of it, which are found in Irenzeus
and Tertullian. Ἵ ‘ ; ; c ; F . ‘ . 66
CHAPTER V.
Of that which is called the Apostles’ Creed Ἶ ὶ ; : , . 80
CHAPTER VI.
. Of the ancient Creed of the East... d ‘ : ; : : shld
Notes of J. Τὰ. Grabe on Chapters TV. V.and VI... : - : . 145
CHAPTER VII.
On the well-known passage in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the
Jew : : : ‘ sees - ‘ ee TEA ὃ : . 168
Appendix to the Seventh Chapter. : : : : [ . 186
1
ἥ
νῶϊ.
Fey 7
ἜΦΥ ΠΩ -
Ress HSake ds
. ἣν — γι ’
veh vane
ἀν Or Fy
i ἰὼ τί ὅδ ς,
te :
ps y
. mA ti. Ar
> pee” Bi Γι σε
Sear sa
ες
ae
+ MES
o> ua
Ἀν στ --- ὅλ. "
THE JUDGMENT
OF
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH,
ETC. —
INTRODUCTION. [11]
THE very learned M. Simon Episcopius, in his Theological τ πον.
Institutes, iv. 2. 33.° after he had shewn, that there are in
Scripture four especial senses’ in which God is called the * modis.
Father of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ, the Son of God
the Father, even considered as Man,—namely, by reason of
His conception of the Holy Ghost, His Mediatorial office,
His resurrection from the dead, and, lastly, His exaltation
to the right hand of the Father ;—then adds, and (notwith-
standing that he shews himself throughout his treatise too
cold a defender of so important a truth) quotes some passages
of Holy Scripture, and advances some arguments based on
Scripture, to prove; “That that preeminence of Sonship, or
of being the Son of God, belongs to Jesus Christ in another,
and still more peculiar sense’, such as cannot fall under any ? ratione.
of the four modes already mentioned, or be referred to Jesus
Christ, considered as man; since Scripture not unfrequently
speaks of Jesus Christ, ὁ. e. of Him who was afterwards called
Jesus Christ, in such a manner as to preclude all doubt,
that He did really exist and subsist, as the true and only
offspring of His Father, before His birth, as man, of His
mother Mary; and consequently ” (as he afterwards explains
himself more fully) “before the creation of the universe ;
and that in such a way, as that all things were made by Him,
and that on that account He is Himself God.”
At length, however, in chap. 34 of the same book, as his
way is, he raises a question; ‘ Whether that fifth mode of
* [Page 335. ]
BULL.—J. C. Ὁ. B
2 Episcopius’ statement: the point at issue.
supauext the Sonship of Jesus Christ, is necessary to be known and
σάκεος, Delieved, in order to salvation; and [whether] those, who
cavrow. deny it, ought to be anathematized?” He takes the nega-
; Tie) tive side of the question, and goes on to defend it by three
arguments. The two former of these we shall leave to be
discussed by others; the third alone (since the consideration
of it seems, as it were, to have fallen to our lot) we propose
to examine in this place.
His argument is as follows; “In the primitive Churches,
from the very times of the Apostles, during at least three
entire centuries, the belief and profession of a special Son-
ship of this kind was not judged necessary to be known and
believed, in order to salvation. Therefore, there is no reason
why it should now be believed to be necessary [to salvation].
This consequence is self-evident, according to the rule of
Vincent of Lerins; that which is necessary to be known
and. believed for salvation, must of necessity be laid down to
have been held and believed as such in the Church of Christ,
in all places, by all persons, and at all times (ubique, ab
omnibus, et semper).”
! ambabus * This consequence we readily’ antheabe but, (to say nothing
en με of Episcopius’ incorrect expression, “the belief and pro-
fession of a special Sonship of this kind was not judged
necessary to be known and believed, in order to salvation ;”
whereas, no doubt, he meant simply to say, that that belief
and profession was not judged necessary to salvation,) with
respect to the antecedent, I contend that it is palpably false,
and shall abundantly prove it to be so in the following work,
such as it is.
One preliminary remark I here make, that we in this remote
age cannot have any more certain means of ascertaining the
judgment of the primitive Churches, respecting the necessity
of this (or indeed of any other) article of our religion, than
by first consulting the extant writings and remains of the
Catholic fathers, and of the more celebrated doctors in the
[13] said Churches, with the object of discovering therefrom,
what were their views concerning this question; next, by
diligently examining Ecclesiastical history, respecting those
who, in the first centuries, denied the divinity of Jesus Christ
our Lord; in order to understand what kind of judgment
Method and division of the argument of this work. 3
was passed against them by the Churches of those times,— _ inrro-
whether they retained them in their communion, or rejected _?°°"°™
them, as aliens from Christ’s body.. There is also a third
method of ascertaining what doctrines the primitive Church
regarded as necessary to be believed; I mean by the creeds
and confessions of faith, which it required of those who wished
to enjoy communion with it. Nor do we ourselves decline
this method, nay, we willingly adopt it, as will be clearly
seen in the sequel. Since, however, very many persons in
this degenerate age interpret the ancient creeds of the
Church, as they do indeed even the Sacred Writings them-
selves, not according to the rule of the Church, and the
Catholic understanding of them, (as Vincent recommended,)
but according to their own pleasure ; since also Episcopius and
others, who have followed him, have drawn an argument in
support of their opinion from that common Créed, which is
called the Apostles’; I have, for these reasons, thought it
more desirable to defer what I have to say about the creeds,
to that part of my work where an answer is made to their
arguments.
Having premised thus much, we shall easily refute the 6
assertion of Episcopius, by the following method :—1. I shall
adduce the testimonies of the primitive fathers, who declare
explicitly enough that the doctrine of the true divinity of |
Christ is absolutely necessary to be believed for salvation.
2. I shall then shew from Ecclesiastical history, that in the
early ages [of the Church] no one ever denied the divine
generation of Jesus Christ our Lord from God the Father,
before all worlds, without being at once, on that account,
excommunicated from the Catholic Church of Christ, and
regarded as a heretic. 8, Lastly, I shall give a very full
answer to the arguments by which Episcopius endeavours to [14]
prove his premises. Such is the scope and end of this our
dissertation.
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
! sym-
mysta.
2 omnino.
3 so Bull;
or “of
Christ.”
* ἄλλα, not avoid as wild beasts;
ἀλλα.
[16]
CHAPTER 1.
THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PRIMITIVE FATHERS ARE ADDUCED, WHO ASSERT THAT
THE BELIEF OF THE ARTICLE CONCERNING THE DIVINITY OF OUR SAVIOUR, IS
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO SALVATION.
1. I WILL commence with the testimonies of the very
earliest fathers. Ignatius, a contemporary’ of the Apostles,
at least of the Apostle John, in his genuine Epistles, which
Isaac Vossius edited, very often inculcates the doctrine that
Christ is God and Man, very God and very Man, as abso-
lutely ? necessary to be believed [for salvation], in opposi-
tion to the heretics of that time, who denied one or the
other of the natures of Christ. Thus in his Epistle to the
Ephesians, after recounting the commendations of them,
which he had heard from their bishop Onesimus, how they
continued to hold fast the Catholic and Apostolic doctrine,
and kept themselves pure from every heresy, he goes on to
admonish them to persevere in the Catholic faith, bemg
cautiously on their guard against the heretics, who were at
that time cunningly and stealthily scattering abroad their
tares in the field of the Church. These are his words?
“For there are some who are accustomed to bear about
the name (ὁ. 6. of Christians’) in wicked guile, while they
do other * things unworthy of God: these it behoves you to
for they are raging dogs, that bite
secretly, which you must guard yourselves against, for they
are difficult to be cured.” Here immediately follows that
celebrated passage about the two natures in Christ*; “There
is One Physician, both fleshly and spiritual, made and not
made, having become God incarnate, true life in death,
> εἰώθασι γάρ τινες δόλῳ πονηρῷ τὸ
ὄνομα περιφέρειν, ἀλλά (leg. ἄλλα). τινὰ
πράσσοντες ἀνάξια Θεοῦ" ods δεῖ ὑμᾶς ὡς
θηρία ἐκκλίνειν. εἰσὶν “γὰρ κύνες λυσ-
σῶντες, λαθροδήκται, “ obs δεῖ ὑμᾶς
φυλάσσεσθαι ὄντας δυσθεραπεύτους-..
εν Εἷς ἰατρός ἐστιν σαρκικός -τε καὶ
πνευματικὸς, γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος, ἐν
σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεὸς, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ
ἀληθινὴ, καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας, καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ. ...
Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατάτω .---Ῥὰρ6 21.
[§ 7. p. 13.]
© See the Defence of the Nic. Creed,
il. 2. 6. [p. 96.]
They who receive not Christ as God and Man, without hope. 5
both of Mary and of God.” Then it is immediately added, cuar. τ.
Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατάτω, “ Let no one lead you astray ; 7 § 1.
i.e. from the true doctrine, which had just before been Iévazts.
set forth, concerning the twofold nature of our Saviour. So
that it is clear enough, that the heretics whom Ignatius
censures, had denied the apostolic doctrine of Christ being
God and Man’; and that this apostolic father was therefore ! Christo
of opinion, that they ought to be altogether avoided by all δ κρότῳ.
such as regarded their own salvation, as raging dogs, biting
in secret, and infusing the deadly poison of their doctrine
into men’s souls. |
But it is moreover to be observed, that after the holy man
had said, that those heretics were “ difficult to be cured” ᾿
(δυσθεραπεύτους), in other words, were in extreme peril and
‘danger of their eternal salvation, he immediately subjoins
this as the reason for so saying: ‘ There is one Physician,
both fleshly and spiritual, made and not made, ἕο, ;” which
is just as if lie had said, There is no salvation for men,
except through the only Physician. of souls, Christ, God and
Man, who is the Mediator between God and man. These
men, however, acknowledge no such Physician and Mediator,
nor will have any such; therefore, their salvation is quite
hopeless’: unless, indeed, they come at last seriously to
repent of their heresy, and embrace and reverence with
entire devotion God the Son, who was incarnate and made
man for their salvation.
Afterwards, in the same Epistle, he again declares these
same heretics to be worse than the most abandoned men;
them and their followers he assigns to the flames of hell, and
calls their doctrine, “a doctrine of devils.” His words are?:
“Do not err, my brethren: destroyers of houses shall not
inherit the kingdom of God. If, therefore, they that do
these things after the flesh were put to death; how much
rather shall he [perish], who by evil doctrine destroys * the
2 deplo-
rata.
[16]
3 φθείρῃ.
7
Μὴ ἀλείφεσθε δυσωδίαν
d μὴ πλανᾶσθε ἀδελφοί μου. of οἶκο-
φθόροι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομή-
σουσιν. εἰ οὖν οἱ κατὰ σάρκα ταῦτα
πράσσοντες ἀπέθανον, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ἐὰν
πίστιν Θεοῦ ἐν κακῇ διδασκαλίᾳ φθείρῃ,
ὑπὲρ ἧς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐσταυρώθη ; ὃ
τοιυῦτος ῥυπαρὸς γενόμενος εἰς τὸ πῦρ
τὸ ἄσβεστον χωρήσει, ὁμοίως καὶ ἀκούων
διδασκαλίας τοῦ ἄρχοντος τοῦ αἰῶνος
τούτου..... Ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς
ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας κατ᾽
οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ, ἐκ σπέρματος μὲν
Δαβὶδ, πνεύματος .δὲ ἁγίου. --- Pp, 26.
27. [§§ 16—18. pp. 15, 16.]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
ὑπο
[17]
preecipue.
* quandam.
5 putative
tantum,
6 Two classes of heretics in the time of St. Ignatius ;
faith® of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified? Such an
one having become polluted, shall go away into the fire that
is unquenchable, as shall also he who listens to him.” Then
shortly afterwards [he says]; “ Do not anoint yourselves
with the ill-savoured ointment of the prince of this world’s
doctrine.” And then he sets forth the apostolic faith, as
opposed to this evil and devilish doctrine, in the following
words; “ For our God, Jesus Christ, was borne in the womb
by* Mary, according to the dispensation of God, of’ the
seed of David, and of the Holy Ghost.” It is on this
account, therefore, that against both seducers and seduced
this father, who was in other respects most gentle, utters his
thunders, and threatens them with the unquenchable fire,
because they were striving to pull down the very first truth
of the Christian religion, even that great mystery of godli-—
ness, that God was manifest in the flesh, of which, as the
Apostle teaches us‘, every true Church of Christ ought, above
all things*, to be “ the pillar and ground,” (στύλος καὶ
ἑδραίωμα,) ἡ. 6. by professing it, by maintaining it through
her testimony, and by preserving it through the preaching of
the Gospel. There were in the age of Ignatius two classes of
heretics, who were engaged in this impious work, opposed no
less to one another than to the truth. One class, whilst
attributing a kind of* divine nature to our Saviour, utterly
divested Him of the human [nature]; for they affirmed, that
Christ lived among men as man, suffered, and died, only in
an imaginary way’: in this heresy were the Simonians, the
Menandrians, the Saturninians, and others,—to whom a later
age, on this account, gave the name of Docete and Phanta-
siaste. The other class, on the contrary, acknowledged only
the human nature in the Lord Jesus, as the Cerinthians and
the Ebionites. It is not easy to say, which of these two
heresies was the more pernicious; the latter certainly, as is
evident, offers the more open insult to the dignity of our
Saviour’s person. That Ignatius, however, had both these
classes of heretics in view, not only in the passages quoted,
9. πίστιν, others read ἐκκλησίαν, πὰ to alter πίστιν, if with Hesychius
in this way indeed the antithesis we understand oixop@dpo to mean
between human habitations and the adulterers, v. Eurip. Fragm. ine.
house of God is better kept up.— xlviii—-B.]
Ussher. [But it is hardly necessary f 1 Tim. iii. 15, 16.
᾿ς {eS
rejected by the Church. St. Ireneus; his authority. 7
but in other parts also of his Epistles, is generally allowed cuar. τ.
by the learned, and indeed is manifest of itself. .Every one ὁ ὁ τ
who reads those passages and examines them without pre- Ienattus.
judice and party-spirit, will surely never agree with the
opinion of Episcopius, or believe that the doctrine touching
the true divinity of our Lord Jesus, was not judged by the
primitive Church to be necessary to be believed in order to
salvation ; much less that that Church kept up’ communion ! coluvisse.
with such as denied it; which, however, Episcopius has
ventured to affirm. And thus much for Ignatius.
2. Justin Martyr (although Episcopius and others who Juszn M.
have followed him have cited him, either in very great
ignorance or with very little candour, in support of their own [18]
view) entertained the same judgment [as Ignatius], con-
cerning such as said, that our Lord Christ was a mere man,
or a created being, as I shall hereafter clearly shew in a
more convenient place.
3. Meanwhile let us take Ireneus next after Ignatius. In Izevavs.
his youth he was so constant and diligent a hearer of Polycarp,
the disciple of the Apostles, that even in his old age he
retained a firm recollection of the discourses and teaching
of that most blessed man (as he himself testifies in his Epistle
to Flormus; see Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. v. 20); he could »
therefore easily know from him what doctrines the apostolic
Church held to be heretical. Now this father, throughout
his writings, just as Ignatius, repudiates as heretics those
who denied Christ to be God-man’, very God and-very man, 2 Θεάνθρω-
and declares them to be strangers to the saving knowledge ””*
of Christ. But his own words about the Cerinthians and the
EKbionites, at the commencement of ch. 21% of his third book,
are most express; “ They, again, who say that He is merely
man begotten of Joseph, continuing in the bondage of their old
disobedience, are dead, not being yet united with the Word
of God the Father, nor receiving freedom through the Son,
as He says Himself, ‘If the Son shall make you free, ye shall
be free indeed.’ But being ignorant of Him, who is [born] of
8. Rursus autem qui nude tantum per Filium percipientes libertatem,
hominem eum dicunt ex Joseph gene- quemadmodum ipse ait, “Si Filius
ratum, perseverantes in servitute pris- vos manumiserit, vere liberi eritis.”
tinze inobedientiz moriuntur, nondum _Ignorantes autem eum, qui ex Virgine
commixti Verbo Dei Patris, neque est Emmanuel, privantur munere ejus,
JUDGMENT .
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 Emma-
nuel,
2 debitores
mortis.
3 ex homi-
nibus.
[19]
4 unitio-
nem.
5 plasma-
tionis.
§ plasmati.
8 St. Lreneus ; on those who believed not in Christ
the Virgin, God with us’, they are deprived of His gift, which
is eternal life: and since they do not receive the Word of in-
corruption, they continue in mortal flesh, and are debtors of
death’, because they accept not the antidote of life.’ Here
he attributes two errors to those heretics; viz. that they
taught that Christ was [1.] a man born of human parents’,
not of a pure virgin, and [2.] that He was a mere man, and
nothing more. For either doctrine he excludes them from
salvation ; affirming that they, continuing in the bondage
of their old disobedience, are dead; that they receive not
freedom through the Son ; that they are deprived of the gift of
Christ, which is eternal life; that they are, in short, debtors
of death. But the especial reason why he passes this tre-
mendous sentence upon them is, that they were ignorant
of Emmanuel, z.e. “ God with us,” and received not the Word
of incorruption, or the incorruptible [Word], but continued
in mortal flesh ; in other words, they acknowledged not the
divine, incorruptible, and immortal nature of Christ.
Parallel to this is the following passage, in which he writes
against the Ebionites by name, v. 1"; “The Ebionites,
however, are also mistaken, because they receive not into
their soul by faith the union* of God and man.” Again, a
little after [he says] ; “ They therefore reject the mingling of
the heavenly wine, and will have it that there is the water of
this world only, not receiving God unto their mingling‘, but
continue in that Adam who was vanquished and cast out of
Paradise ; not considering, that as from the beginning of our
creation ® in Adam, that breath of life, which was from God,
being united to created ° matter, animated man, and exhibited
a rational animal; so in the end, THE WORD OF THE FATHER
quod est vita seterna; non recipientes
autem Verbum incorruptionis perse-
verant in carne mortali, et sunt debi-
tores mortis, antidotum vite non ac-
cipientes.—[ Chap. 19. p. 212. ]
h Vani autem et Ebionei, unitio-
nem Dei et hominis per fidem non
recipientes in suam animam.... Re-
probant itaque hi commixtionem vini
_eccelestis, et solam aquam secularem
volunt esse, non recipientes Deum ad
commixtionem suam, perseverantes
autem in eo qui victus est Adam et
projectus est de Paradiso; non con-
templantes, quoniam quemadmodum
ab initio plasmationis nostre in Adam
ea que fuit a Deo inspiratio [adspi-
ratio, ed. Ben.] vite, unita plasmati,
animavit hominem, et animal rationale
ostendit, sic in fine Versum Parris er
Sprritus Det, ADUNITUS ANTIQUE SUB-
STANTI® PLASMATIONIS ADM, viventem
et perfectum effecit hominem [capi-
entem perfectum Patrem].—[§ 3. p.
i (The Ebionites, as S. Epiphanius
(Heer. xxx. §16) states, used water only
in the celebration of the Eucharist.]
ἷ
a
"
‘
: as ‘God with us? —- Tertullian and Novatian. 9
AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD, BEING UNITED TO THE ANCIENT cnap.t.
SUBSTANCE OF ADAM’S CREATION, made a living and perfect Bide Se
Man.” ‘To this may be added a passage of Irenzus, which Inexavs.
Theodoret has quoted from book iv. 59*; “And he (the
spiritual man) will judge the Ebionites also. How can they
be saved, unless it be God who hath wrought out their salva- [20]
tion on the earth ? or how shall man pass into’ God, unless ᾿ χωρήσει
God hath come into”? man ?” 2 ἐχωρήϑη
4, Tertullian! (in his Prescription against Heresies, ch. iv.) εἶδ:
affirms, that the article on the generation of the Son of God yeni
from* God the Father Himself, before the worlds*, undoubtedly ° ex.
belongs to that rule of faith, “which admits no questionings ae
amongst Christians, except those which heresies introduce,
and which make heretics.” This passage I shall cite at length
hereafter, when I come to treat of the Creeds™. Besides, you
will presently find in this chapter a remarkable testimony
from Tertullian in support of the necessity of this article.
5. After Tertullian must be placed Novatian, or the author Novarran.
of the treatise on the Trinity, among the works of Tertullian.
For in the eleventh chapter" of that treatise, [the author]
condemns the doctrine of those that deny the divinity of
Christ, and affirm Him to be a mere man or a created being,
as a most dangerous heresy, and insulting to God the Father
Himself. For instance, in that chapter he writes thus; “ For
it is a very perilous thing, to say that the Saviour of the
human race,—the Lord and Ruler of the whole universe, to
whom all things have been delivered, and the whole have
been given up by His Father, through whom the universe was
established, all things created, and the whole set in order,
the King of all dispensations* and times, the Prince of all ὅ evorum.
angels, before whom [was] nothing except the Father,—is
k ἀνακρινεῖ δὲ καὶ τοὺς "HBidvovs. versa, creata sunt tota, digesta sunt
πῶς δύνανται σωθῆναι, εἰ μὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἦν,
ὁ τὴν σωτηρίαν αὐτῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἐργα-
σάμενος ; ἢ πῶς ἄνθρωπος χωρήσει εἰς
Θεὺν, εἰ μὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἐχωρήθη εἰς ἄνθρωπον ;
—[88, 4, p. 271.]
m™ See below, chap. iv. ὃ 9.
n Est enim periculum grande, Sal-
vatorem generis humani, totius Domi-
num et Principem mundi, cui a suo
Patre omnia tradita sunt et cuncta
concessa, per quem instituta sunt uni-
cuncta, evorum omnium et temporum
Regem, angelorum omnium Princi-
pem, ante quem nihil preter Patrem,
hominem tantummodo dicere, et auc-
toritatem illi divinam in his abnegare.
Hee enim contumelia hereticorum
- ad ipsum quoque Deum Patrem re-
dundabit, si Deus Pater Filium Deum
generare non potuit. Sed enim veri-
tati ceecitas hereticorum nulla pre-
scribet.—[P. 713.] Ante quem nibil
preter Patrem. The sense in which
10 Novatian; on the necessity of believing in Christ as God.
jupemenr merely a man, and to deny to Him divine authority in these
carnong respects. For this insulting’ opinion of the heretics will
cuurcn. reflect on God the Father Himself also, if the Father, [being]
' contume- God, could not beget the Son, God. However, no blind-
we ness of the heretics will prescribe [limits so as to exclude]
the truth.” Again, at the very beginning of the twelfth
chapter of the same book, he expressly declares that he who
[21] does not acknowledge Christ to be God, cannot be saved.
These are his own very words®; “ Why then should we hesi-
tate to say, what Scripture does not hesitate to expréss?
οἷ egies Why should the truth of the faith’ falter, where the autho-
rity of Scripture never faltered? For, behold, the prophet
Hosea says, in the person of the Father ; ‘I will not save them
by bow, nor by horses, nor by horsemen; but I will save
them by the Lord? their God.’ If God says that He saves
[them] by God, and yet God saves not except by Christ,
why then should man hesitate to call Christ God, when he
8 positum. perceives that He is in the Scriptures stated ἡ to be God by
the Father? Nay more, if God the Father saves not except
by God, it will not be possible for any one to be saved by God
the Father, without confessing that Christ is God, in whom
and through whom the Father promises to give salvation: so
that, as is fitting*, every one who acknowledges that He is God,
finds salvation in Christ [being] God; whereas he who denies
that He is God, will lose the salvation, which he will not be
able to find anywhere except in Christ [being] God.” Lastly,
in chapter 30, after speaking of both classes of heretics,—as
well those who say that the Son is the Father, as those who
4 merito.
Novatian meant this, the reader will
find explained in the Defence of the
Nicene Creed, iii. 8. 7. [p. 480.]
° Cur ergo dubitemus dicere, quod
Scriptura non dubitat exprimere? cur
heesitabit fidei veritas, in quo Scrip-
ture nunquam heesitavit auctoritas?
ecce enim Osee prophetes ait ex per-
sona Patris, “Jam non salvabo eos in
arcu, neque in equis, neque in equi-
tibus, sed salvabo eos in Domino Deo
ipsorum.” Si Deus salvare se dicit in
Deo, non autem salvat nisi in Christo
- Deus, cur ergo homo dubitet Christum
Deum dicere, quem Deum a Patre
animadvertit positum per Scripturas
esse? Imo si non salvat nisi in Deo
Pater Deus, salvari non potuerit a
Deo Patre quisquam, nisi confessus
fuerit Christum Deum, in quo se et
per quem se repromittit Pater salutem
daturum; ut merito quisquis illum
agnoscit esse Deum, salutem inveniat
in Deo Christo ; quisquis non recog-
noscit esse Deum, salutem perdiderit,
quam alibi nisi in Christo Deo inve-
nire non poterit.—{P. 713.]
P The Targum of Jonathan has, “by
the Word of the Lord their God.”
Hence also ancient Christian writers
agree in explaining this passage of
Christ, the Word and Son of God. See
Defence of the Nicene Creed, i. 1. 19.
[p. 34.]
Origen; on the rule of faith as received from the Apostles. 11
say that He is not God,—he adds, with no less of truth than cmap. 1.
of skill’ and beauty4; “In very deed our Lord is crucified, ὃ ἢ δ
as_ it were, between two thieves, as He was aforetime: and Novatmy.
thus on both sides do the impious reproaches of these heretics on
assail Him.”
7 6. I come now to Origen, who, if any of the ancients Oniczy.
___ [did], adopted a liberal theology; so that one might fairly
call him (to use an epithet well known amongst ourselves)
“the latitudinarian father.” Notwithstanding, even Origen,
whilst professedly treating of the necessary articles of the [22]
Christian faith, in the first book of his work Περὶ ἀρχῶν, 9
(On First Principles,) in éxpress terms enumerates among
them this of the divinity of Christ, and that as one of
the most important. The passage is a remarkable one, and
therefore, notwithstanding its length, I shall not hesitate
to transcribe it from the Apology of the martyr Pamphilus'’;
“ Whereas there are many who suppose that they have the
mind’ of Christ, and [yet] some of them think differently ? sentire
from those who have gone before us, whilst nevertheless ¢)\..4;
the teaching* of the Church is preserved, handed down sunt. —
in the order of succession from the Apostles, and continu- Peng
. ing in the Churches even to the present time, that alone dicatio.
must be believed to be the truth which in no respect
differs from the tradition of the Church. We ought not,
however, to be ignorant of this, that the holy Apostles,
when they preached the faith of Christ, were most clear in
their statement of certain points, such as they believed to be
necessary for all believers, even those who seemed to be
slower in the search into divine knowledge; leaving, as it
appears, the reasons of their statement to be inquired into
by those who should be worthy to receive the eminent gifts
4 Revera quasi inter duos latrones
crucifigitur Dominus, quomodo fixus
aliquando est; et ita excipiunt heereti-
corum istorum ex utroque latere sacri-
lega convitia.—[P. 728.]
τ Cum multi sint, qui se putant
sentire que Christi sunt; et nonnulli
eorum diversa a prioribus sentiant,
servetur vero ecclesiastica praedicatio
per successionis ordineim ab apostolis
tradita, οὐ usque ad preesens in eccle-
siis permanens, illa sola credenda est
veritas, quee in nullo ab ecclesiastica
traditione discordat. Illud autem
scire oportet, quoniam S. apostoli,
fidem Christi preedicantes, de quibus-
dam quidem, queecunque necessaria
crediderunt omnibus _ credentibus,
etiam his qui pigriores erga inquisi-
tionem divine scientiz videbantur,
manifestissime tradiderunt ; rationem
scilicet assertionis eorum relinquentes
ab his inquirendam, qui Spiritus dona
excellentia et preecipue sermonis sa-
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 studio-
slores.
2 species
istee.
[23]
3 compo-
suit.
4 natus.
5 condi-
tione.
8 ecclesia-
sticee pre-
dicationis.
12 Origen; on the articles necessary to be believed by all;
of the Spirit, especially those of ‘the word of wisdom and
knowledge,’ through the Holy Spirit itself. On certain other
points, however, they simply declared [the fact] that they
are; but how they are, and whence they are, they said not;
in order, no doubt, that such among those who came after
them as should be more earnest in inquiry’ than others,
lovers of wisdom and knowledge, might have exercise, wherein
to shew some fruit from their abilities; such, I mean, as
should prepare themselves to be worthy and capable of wisdom.
Now, instances’? of those points which [as I have said] are
plainly taught by the preaching of the Apostles, are as
follows: First, that there is one God, who created and
ordered’ all things, and made the universe out of nothing,
&e. And, that this God, as He had promised before by His
prophets, in the last days sent our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.
Then next, that the very Jesus Christ who came was begotten *
of the Father before every creature. That, after He had
ministered to the Father in the creation’ of all things, (for
‘by Him were all things made,’) in the last times He emptied
Himself, and was made man; He was made flesh, although
He was God; and when He had become man, He remained,
what He was, God.” In these words, Origen says that the .
doctrine of the divinity of the Son is a part of that teaching of
the Church ὁ which had been handed down from the Apostles
themselves, and was always up to his time preserved in
the Churches; and whereas [the truths] which the Apostles
taught were of different kinds, he places this article amongst
those points which they tauglit most clearly as being neces-
sary for all believers, even the more ignorant.
pientize et scientize per ipsum Spiri-
tum 8. percipere merebantur. De
aliis vero dixerunt quidem quia sint;
quomodo autem, aut unde sint, silue-
runt; profecto ut studiosiores quique
ex posteris suis, amatores sapientiz et
scientize, exercitium habere possent in |
quo ingenii sui fructum ostendere
valerent ; hi videlicet, qui dignos se
et capaces sapientis preepararent.
Species vero eorum que per preedica-
tionem apostolicam manifeste tradun-
tur; iste sunt, Primo quod unus est
Deus, qui omnia creavit atque compo-
suit, quique ex nullis esse fecit uni-
versa, &c. Et quod hie Deus in
novissimis diebus, sicut per prophetas
suos ante promiserat, misit Dominum
Jesum Christum, &c. Tum deinde,
quia Christus Jesus, ipse qui venit,
ante omnem creaturam natus ex Patre
est. Qui cum in omnium conditione
Patri ministrasset, (per ipswm namque
omnia facta sunt,) novissimis tempo-
ribus seipsum exinaniens, homo factus
est; incarnatus est, cum Deus esset;
et homo factus mansit quod erat Deus.
—[Pref. 2. Origen, Works, vol. i. p.
47.| Also in Pamphilus’s Apology,
among the works of Jerome, tom. ix.
pp. 115, 116, ed. Victor. [vol. iv. Ori-
gen. Append. p. 20.]
on heretics ; their sin and danger ; who are heretics. 13
In the same Apology* there is a quotation from Origen’s cmap. τ΄
work on the Epistle to Titus; in which he thus annotates_ 5% _
on that passage of the Apostle in chap. 111. verse 10,—“ A Oxicen.
man that is an heretic, after the first [and second] admo-
nition, reject ;”—‘‘ The name heresy, so far as I have been
able to discover, occurs also in the Epistle to the Corinth-
_ ians’ on this wise: ‘ For there must be [also] heresies ' [1 Cor.
[among you], that they which are approved may be made” 19.)
manifest among you.’ And again, [in the Epistle] to the
Galatians, the name of ‘heresy’ is enumerated among the
works of the flesh, as he says; ‘ Now the works of the flesh
are manifest, which are these; [adultery,| fornication, un-
cleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, va-
riance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, &c., of
the which I also tell you before, that they which do such
things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.’ From this we
learn that, as those who are defiled with fornication, or
uncleanness, and lasciviousness, and idolatry, shall not inherit
the kingdom of God, so neither shall they who fall away
into heresy. Therefore, on the authority of the statement of
the Apostle himself, we ought to avoid the name of heresy as
well as the other evils which are enumerated; and not be
joined with such in the communion of prayer.” Shortly
afterwards, Origen shews who are to be regarded as heretics,
in these words; “ But let us, to the best of our power,
according as we are able to understand, describe what a
heretic is: every one who professes to believe in Christ, and
yet says that the God of the law and the prophets is one, the
God of the gospels another, ὅθ. We must hold the very
‘i Oe
[34]
5. Nomen heresis, quantum ego de-
prehendere potui, etiam in Epistola
_ ad Corinthios designatur hoc modo,
Oportet enim hereses esse, ut probati
manifesti fiant inter vos. Et iterum
ad Galatas, inter opera carnis heeresis
quoque nomen adscribitur, sicut ait,
Manifesta autem sunt opera carnis,
que sunt fornicatio, inmmunditia, im-
pudicitia, idololatria, veneficia, int-
micitie, contentiones, cemulationes,
ire, rixe, discordie, hereses, &c. que
et predico vobis, quoniam qui talia
agunt regnum Dei non possidebunt.
Per que cognoscimus, quoniam sicut
hi qui fornicationibus vel immun-
ditiis atque impudicitiis et idolorum
eultibus maculati sunt, regnum Dei
non possidebunt; ita et hi qui in
heresin declinaverint. ΓΈΡΟΣ
Propterea ‘ergo, secundum auctorita-
tem sententiee ipsius (apostoli) oportet
nos, sicut reliqua mala que numera-
vit, ita etiam nomen heeresis devitare,
neque cum talibus orationis societate
misceri. . . . Quid vero sit hereticus
homo, pro viribus nostris, secundum
quod sentire possumus, describamus :
Omnis qui Christo se credere confite-
tur, et tamen alium Deum legis et
prophetarum, alium evangeliorum
Deum dicit, &. .... Unum atque
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
Dionysius
R.
[25]
10
14 Dionysius R.; necessity of believing the Divinity of Christ.
same of him also, who shall hold anything false respecting our
Lord Jesus Christ, whether following those who allege that
He was born of Joseph and Mary, as do the Ebionites and
the Valentinians', or those who deny that He was the First-
begotten, and the God of the whole creation, and the Word,
and that Wisdom, which is the beginning of the ways of God,
before anything was made; which was set up before the
worlds, and brought forth before all the hills; and who say
that He is only man.” Surely, nothing can be plainer than
this.
7. Dionysius, a very celebrated bishop of the Church of
Rome, who flourished not long after Origen, in an Epistle
against the Sabellians, quoted by Athanasius", calls the
doctrine of the Holy Trinity, τὸ σεμνότατον κήρυγμα ths
ἐκκλησίας τοῦ @cov,—“‘the most sacred doctrine of the
Church of God,’’—such, that is, as it is a hemous sin in the
least degree to violate; whilst those who dare to affirm that
the Son of God is a created being and made, he charges not
only with heresy simply, but with the greatest blasphemy.
“Tt is*,” says he, “no ordinary blasphemy, but rather the
greatest, to say that the Lord is in any way a handy-work ;
for if He were made a Son, there was a time when He was
not: but He always was in existence.” It is therefore
certain, that in the age of Dionysius, the Church of Rome,
deservedly the most honoured of all Churches of that period,
judged that the article respecting the eternal Godhead of the
Son was absolutely necessary to be believed, and had no
communion with such as did not acknowledge Christ to be
God, but said that He was a creature.
8. It would be endless, were I to adduce all the statements
of all the primitive fathers which bear on this point; there-
fore, to the testimonies which have been already advanced
idem credendum est etiam de eo, qui
de Domino nostro Jesu Christo falsi
aliquid senserit, sive secundum eos,
qui dicunt eum ex Joseph et Maria
natum, sicut sunt Ebionitee et Valen-
tiniani; sive secundum eos, qui Pri-
mogenitum eum negant et totius
creaturee Deum, et Verbum, et Sapien-
tiam, que est initium viarum Dei,
antequam aliquid fieret, ante ssecula
fundatam, atque ante omnes colles
generatam, sed hominem solum eum
dicentes.—Ib. p. 117. [p. 22.]
t See the notes of Huet. on Orig.
Comment. p. 120.
« De Decret. Synod. Nic. tom. i.
pp. 275, 276. [ὃ 26. vol. i. p.231. See
the Def. F. N. vol. i. p. 303.]
xX βλάσφημον οὖν, od τὸ τυχὸν, μέ:
γιστον μὲν οὖν, χειροποίητον τρόπον
τινὰ λέγειν τὸν Κύριον. εἰ γὰρ γέγονεν
υἱὸς, ἣν ὅτε οὐκ. Fv" ἀεὶ δὲ ἦν.---10]14.]
The Divinity of the Messiah denied by the Jews. 15
I will merely add this general observation, that in the earliest
ages there was a controversy violently agitated between Jews
and Christians respecting the person of the Messiah, or the
Christ, whether, according to the predictions of the prophets,
He were to be God and man, or mere man (ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος).
The latter view was affirmed by the Jews and some Judaizing
Christians ; (who charged those who held the divinity of
Christ with the polytheism of the heathen ;) and the former
was strenuously maintained, as the chief article’ of their
faith and salvation, by all Catholic Christians, so that they
even regarded as aliens from the Christian Church, and
deserters to the synagogue, those who denied this doctrine,
although they professed the faith of Jesus Christ in all other
respects. ‘The fact is, it appeared to them to be nearly the
same thing, not to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, and to
deny Him to be God.
9. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, when en-
deavouring to shew that it was predicted by the holy prophets
that the Messiah or Christ was both to be God and to be
born as man of a virgin, is thus met by Trypho’; “ As for
your saying that this Christ pre-existed as God in being
before the worlds, [and] then endured? even to become man,
and to be born, and that He was not man of man; it seems
to me to be not merely paradoxical, but even absurd.” Justin,
in reply, says to him; “I am aware that what I say does
appear paradoxical, and especially to those of your nation
who have never been willing either to understand or to do
the things which are of God, but those [only] which your
instructors teach you, as God Himself loudly complains*.”
In his first book against Celsus, Origen finds fault with that
Epicurean, because, in the prosopopeeia, where he introduces
a Jew as a speaker, he had not preserved consistency 4,
having put into the mouth of his Jew words which were by no
means suited to his character; for instance, the following ;
“But my prophet formerly declared at Jerusalem, that the
Υ τὸ γὰρ λέγειν σε, mpodmdpxew Θεὸν τα ἔφην" O18 ὅτι παράδοξος ὁ λόγος
ὄντα πρὸ αἰώνων τοῦτον τὸν Χριστὸν, δοκεῖ εἶναι, καὶ μάλιστα τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ
εἶτα καὶ γεννηθῆναι ἄνθρωπον γενόμενον γένους ὑμῶν, οἵτινες τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὔτε
ὑπομεῖναι, καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἀν- νοῆσαι, οὔτε ποιῆσαι ποτὲ βεβούλησθε,
ro, ov μόνον παράδοξον δοκεῖ μοι ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν διδασκάλων ὑμῶν, ὡς αὐτὸς
εἶναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ μωρόν. [Κἀγὼ πρὸς ταῦ: ὁ Θεὸς Bog.—[§ 48. pp. 148, 144. ]
CHAP. I.
> .
1 caput,
[26]
2 ὑπομεῖναι.
3 βοᾷ.
4 decorum.
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH,
1 annume-
rare ei.
2 sacra-
mentum.
3 coram.
16 Tertullian on this, as distinguishing Christians from Jews.
Son of God would come, a Judge of the righteous, an
Avenger of the wicked.” He immediately assigns this as a
reason for his censure’; “A Jew would not acknowledge that
a prophet said, that the Son of God would come; for what
they say is, that the Christ of God will come. Indeed, often-
times, they raise a direct question with us, concerning the
Son of God, as if no such either existed or had been pro-
phesied of.” The same reproach he again fixes on Celsus in
book iv.*, saying; “He is, I am quite sure, ignorant that
the Jews never say at all that the Christ will come down,
being God, or the Son of God.”
10. Tertullian, however, writes what is more to the point
of our observations in his work against Praxeas, near the’
end; “ But of the Jewish faith this is the substance, so to
believe in one God as to refuse to reckon the Son besides’,
and after the Son the Spirit. For what difference would
there be between us and them, if there were not this dis-
tinction? What need would there be of the Gospel, which
is the substance of the new covenant, and lays down that the
law and the prophets were until John, if thenceforward the
Father, the Son, and the Spirit, being believed in as Three,
do not make one God? God was pleased to renew His cove-
nant’ with man in such a way as that His unity might be
believed on after a new manner through the Son and the
Spirit, that God might now be known openly*® in His proper
Names and Persons, who aforetime also, being declared
through the Son and the Spirit, was not understood. Let the
antichrists, therefore, take heed, who deny the Father and the
Son,” &c. But what Novatian remarks in his treatise on the
Trinity, chap. xxiii., is most apposite, where, on these words of
% Ιουδαῖος δὲ οὐκ ἂν ὁμολογήσαι, ὅτι
προφήτης τις εἶπεν, ἥξειν Θεοῦ υἱόν" ὃ
γὰρ λέγουσιν, ἐστὶν, ὅτι ἥξει ὁ Χριστὸς
τοῦ Θεοῦ. Καὶ πολλάκις γε ζητοῦσι
πρὸς ἡμᾶς εὐθέως περὶ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ, ὡς οὐ-
δενὸς ὄντος τοιούτου, οὐδὲ προφητευθέν-
τος.---. 38, Cambridge edition. [i.
49. p. 366.]
ἃ Οὐκ olde μέντοιγε, ὅτι οὐ πάνυ τι
Ἰουδαῖοι λέγουσι Θεὸν ὄντα Χριστὸν
καταβήσεσθαι, ἢ Θεοῦ υἱόν. ---- P. 162.
[$2 p. 503.]
Ὁ Cexterum Judaicee fidei ista res,
sic unum Deum credere, ut Filium
annumerare ei nolis, et post Filium,
Spiritum. Quid enim erit inter nos
et illos, nisi differentia ista? quid
opus evangelii, que est substantia
Novi Test. statuens Jegem et prophe-
tas usque ad Johannem, si non exinde
Pater et Filius et Spiritus, tres cre-
diti, unum Deum sistunt? Sie Deus
voluit novare sacramentum, ut nove
unus crederetur per Filium et Spiri-
tum, ut coram jam Deus in suis pro-
priis nominibus et personis cognosee-
retur, qui et retro per Filium-et Spiri-
tum preedicatus non intelligebatur.
Viderint igitur antichristi, qui negant
Patrem et Filium, &c.”—[P, 518.]
The denial of our Lord’s Divinity, a Jewish heresy. 17
CHAP. I.
John viii. 14, 15° ; “Though I bear record of myself, yet My =
record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go;
but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whitherI go. Ye judge
after the flesh,” he has these truly excellent observations ;
“See, here also He says that He will return thither, from
whence He testifies that He had previously come; having
been sent, that is, from heaven. He descends, therefore,
from the place whence He came, just as he goes thither from
whence He descended. It follows from this, that, if Christ had.
been merely man, He would not have come from thence;
by coming, however, thence whence man could not come,
He shews that He came [being] God. The Jews, however, 11
being ignorant of this His descent, and without understand-
ing!, have made those heretics their heirs, to whom it is said, 1 imperiti.
‘ Ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go; ye judge
after the flesh.’ These, as well as the Jews, holding that the
nativity of Christ was only after the flesh, believed that
Christ was nothing else than man; not considering this,
that, inasmuch as a man could not have come down from
heaven so as to be able of right* to return thither, He who ? ut merito
came down from that place, whence man could not have ?°*"*
come, is God.”
11, Accordingly the author (whoever that was) of the
Epistle to Hero the deacon, ascribed to Ignatius, deserves
attention on this point at least, that he condemns the heresy
of those who deny the Divinity of Christ, as a Jewish impiety
and blasphemy, in the following words‘; “If any one says
that the Lord is a mere man, he is a Jewish murderer of
Christ.” Very similar language is used by, apparently, the
same author in his Epistle to the Church of Antioch, wherein
© Hist ego de me testificor, verum
[28]
hereticos istos reddiderunt, quibus
tT +
est testimonium meum; quia scio
wnde venerim, et quoeam. Vos igno-
ratis unde venerim, aut quo eam ; vos
secundum carnem. judicatis ; Ecce et
hic illue se dicit rediturum, unde se
testificatur ante venisse; missum scil.
de ceelo. Descendit ergo unde venit,
quomodo illue vadit unde descendit.
Ex quo, si homo tantummodo Christus
esset, non inde venisset; . . . . veni-
endo autem inde unde homo venire
non potest, Deus se ostendit venisse.
Sed enim hujus ipsius descensionis
ignari et imperiti Judeei heredes sibi
BULL.—J. 0. ©.
dicitur, Vos ignoratis unde veniam,
et quo eam; vos secundum carnem
judicatis. Tam isti, quam Judai, car-
nalem solam esse Christi nativitatem
tenentes, nihil aliud Christum esse
quam hominem crediderunt; non
considerantes illud, quoniam cum de
coelo homo non potuerit venire, ut
merito illuc possit redire, Deum esse
qui inde descenderit, unde homo ve-
nire non potuerit.—[p. 721.]
ἃ Etris ἄνθρωπον ψιλὸν λέγῃ τὸν Κύ-
ριον, ᾿Ιουδαϊός ἐστι Χριστοκτόνος-. ---
[Patr. Apost. Coteler. vol. ii. p. 109.]
C
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[29]
1 pregales
Sabellii.
2 ἄγονον
υἱοῦ.
[80]
18 The denial of Christ’s Godhead connected with Judaism.
he bids them® “to throw off all Jewish and Gentile error:
and neither introduce a multitude of Gods besides [the true],
nor deny Christ under a pretext of the unity of God.” And,
after a short interval, he adds‘; “Every one, therefore, who
preaches One Only God, so as to overthrow the Divinity of
Christ, is a devil, and an enemy of all righteousness.”
12. Lastly, the sense of the primitive Catholic Church on
this subject is, as usual, admirably expressed by the great
Athanasius, not far from the commencement of his Oration®
against the Sabellians’; “‘ Many and weighty,” he says, “are
the objections which the Jews have to urge against idolaters ;
and what they say is just, when they accuse them of wor-
shipping the creature rather than the Creator. However,
they must not, because they refute an impiety, be for that
reason accounted pious, whilst they deny the Son of God,
through whom all things were made, and charge with poly-
theism those who worship the Father through Him. Where-
fore we have come out from the Gentiles, and are separate,
in order not to be mixed up with their impure idolatries ;
and we have also come out from the blasphemy of the Jews,
by having confessed the Son of God.” And, after a short
interval, he adds"; “We separate ourselves likewise from
such as Judaize, and corrupt Christianity with Judaism, who
denying Him that is of God to be God, speak of God as
one in some such way as the Jews do; not saying that
He is the only God, because He alone is unbegotten and
alone the fountain of Deity ; but as being without’ a Son,
and without the fruit of a living Word and true wisdom.”
© Πᾶσαν ᾿Ιουδαϊκὴν καὶ Ἑλληνικὴν
ἀπορρίψαι πλάνην καὶ μήτε πλῆθος
θεῶν ἐπεισάγειν, μήτε τὸν Χριστὸν ap-
ἐγκαλοῦντες πολυθεότητα. διόπερ ἐξελη-
λύθαμεν ἐξ Ἑλλήνων καὶ ἀφωρίσμεθα,
πρὸς τὸ μὴ ταῖς ἀκαθάρτοις εἰδωλολατρί-
νεῖσθαι προφάσει τοῦ ἑνὸς Ocod.—[Ibid.
Ρ.104.1
f Πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἕ ἕνα καὶ μόνον καταγ-
γέλλει Θεὸν ἐπ’ ἀναιρέσει τῆς τοῦ Χρισ-
τοῦ θεότητος, ἐστὶ διάβολος καὶ ἐχθρὸς
πάσης δικαιοσύνη»ς.---[Π014. § 5, p. 105.]
Ε Πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα, κατὰ τῶν
εἰδωλολατρούντων ἔχουσι λέγειν οἱ
᾿Ιουδαῖοι, καὶ δίκαια λέγυυσι, κατηγο-
ροῦντες αὐτῶν τῇ κτίσει λατρευόντων
παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα. ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὅτι δυσ-
σέβειαν ἐλέγχουσι, διὰ τοῦτο εὐσεβεῖν
δωολογηθήσονται, τὸν. υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, δι᾽
οὗ τὰ πάντα γέγονεν, ἀρνούμενοι, καὶ
τοῖς δι αὐτοῦ τὸν Πατέρα σεβομένοις
ais ἀναμίγνυσθαι. ἐξεληλύθαμεν δὲ καὶ
ἐκ τῆς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων βλασφημίας, τὸν
υἱὸν ὁμολογήσαντες τοῦ Θεοῦ.---ΓΥ 0].
ii. p. 37. The Benedictine editor,
however, denies that this Oration is
the work of Athanasius,—B.]
h Χωριζόμεθα δὲ καὶ τῶν ᾿ἸΙουδαϊζόν-
των καὶ τὸν Χριστιανισμὸν ey” Ιουδαϊσμῷ
παραφθειρόντων, οἱ τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ
Θεὸν ἀρνούμενοι, Θεὸν ἕνα παραπλησίως
Ιουδαίοις. λέγουσιν" οὐχ ὅτι μόνος ἂγέν-
vnTos, καὶ μόνος πηγὴ θεότητος, διὰ
τοῦτο φάσκοντες αὐτὸν εἶναι μόνον Θεὸν,
ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἄγονον υἱοῦ καὶ ἄκαρπον ζῶντος
λόγου καὶ σοφίας ἀληθινῆς.---[Π 014, ὃ 2.]
Of the Jewish opinions respecting the Messiah. 19
What follows in Athanasius is, indeed, most worthy of being
read; for in it that almost dive man admirably proves,
both from the first verse of the first chapter of the evangelist
John,-and from reason itself, that it is impossible to have
a right conception of God as one, in the sense of the Jews
and Judaizing heretics; that is, in such sense one, as to
be unipersonal (μονοπρόσωπος) ; since it is necessary that
God, who is eternal mind, should have in Himself and with
Himself His Word (λόγος), and that not such as is the
human word, but living and subsisting; such as to be,
because a living and subsisting Word, a Person; and, be-
cause the Word is from God the Father, a divine Person,
distinct from the Father; and yet, inasmuch as the Word is
in the Father, and is the Word of the Father, one God with
the Father. This, however, is not the place for pursuing
that subject.
13. But, as regards the opinion of the Jews respecting the
Messiah, it will not perhaps be out of place, before I finish
this chapter, to remark in passing’, that their own prophets
do throughout their writings intimate, and that not ob-
scurely, that the Messiah or Christ would be both God and
man, as, among the ancients, Justin Martyr has shewn at
length in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; whilst the
most noble and learned Du Plessis has produced abundant
proof, that the same doctrine was not entirely unknown to
the more intelligent of the Hebrew doctors. See his treatise
on the Truth of the Christian Religion, chapter 28. But,
notwithstanding, it is clear that the Jews, even in the
time of Christ, did for the most part entertain very poor
and low views’? about their Messiah, supposing that He
would be nothing else than man. Accordingly, in Matthew
xxii. 42, we read that our most Holy Saviour, wishing to
catch the captious Pharisees, thus questioned them ; ‘‘ What
think ye of Christ? Whose Son is He?” And that the
Pharisees answered, “The Son of David;” (that is, they
expected a Messiah, who should be merely and simply the
son of David,—mnever even dreaming of the Son of God ;)
that then our Lord pressed them with this difficult question’,
see verses 43, 44, 45, “ How then doth David in Spirit call
Him Lord, saying, The Lord said wnto my Lord, &c. If
Ο 2
OHAP. 1.
ὃ 11—13.
1 ὡς ἐν
παρόδῳ.
[81]
2 πτωχῶς
καὶ ταπει-
v@s sen-
sisse.
12
3 eenig-
mate.
20 Carnal notions of the Jews. What we are taught
supament David, then, call Him Lord, how is He his Son?” Now to
carnorre ‘His question no one of the Pharisees was able to return
cHuRCH. an answer, verse 46. But surely, if the Pharisees had had
any thought of the Divinity of the Messiah, they .could
easily have found a solution for this enigma; for they could
have said, that Christ would indeed be David’s Son, as
regards the flesh; but his Lord, with respect to His divine
nature.
Now this opinion of the Jews unquestionably originated
in that gross and carnal conception of the Messiah, which a
nation, tied down to the flesh and the earth, had formed to
themselves. For in their Messiah they expected to see a
glorious king, preeminent in power and wealth and arms,
1 adeoque. who should exalt his sceptre, and with 101 the Jewish nation,
over all the empires of the earth; who should vanquish all
the enemies of his people, and should especially throw down
?domina- imperial? Rome from her lofty seat, and in her place set
en up Jerusalem, to be the metropolis of all the world. Fora
Messiah, then, such as this, what need was there of God-
head? Such achievements as these could surely all be
wrought, with God’s assisting providence, by a Cyrus, an
[32] Alexander, or a Cesar. What is to be said of this that
such an earthly empire was utterly unworthy of God? No
wonder, therefore, that the Jews, entertaining such notions
as these about the Messiah, did not recognise in Him any
divine nature.
14. Nevertheless, it absolutely surpasses all belief, that.
among Christians,—taught, as they are most clearly, in the
Gospel, truths far more holy and sublime respecting their
Christ, — any should now be found, or ever should have
been found, who could imagine that He is a bare man ΟΥ̓ ἃ
mere creature. Not to mention those passages in the New
Testament, which immediately respect the doctrine of His,
8 θεολογίαν divine nature *, in which, that is, He is declared to be “the
ejus. Son of God,’ and “God before all worlds, by whom all
things were made,” (which passages are indeed so numerous
and so express, that the man must needs be wilfully blind,
who does not see their light ;) even those things which are
4 honorem. said of His economy, and relate to His office or prerogative *.
as the Messiah, or Christ, and our Mediator, do certainly
ἢ of the Messiah and His offices, implies His Divine Nature. 21
imply’ that He is more than man or a creature. The economy cmap. τ
__ which is assigned to Him, necessarily (as they say) presup- 9.15. 14,
poses His divine nature’; and absolutely establishes it. How * sonant.
could it be otherwise? Our sacred writings set forth, and ae
we all profess to believe in a Messiah or Christ, who is the
Saviour of souls; who is unto us “ wisdom, righteousness,
sanctification, and redemption;” i.e. who makes us wise,
just, holy, and at last perfectly happy; who at once hears
the prayers of His people, wheresoever they call upon His
holy name, and who must therefore be omnipresent, omni-
scient, and knowing the hearts*; who is always ready at * καρδιο-
hand to His Church, disseminated through the whole world; 7”7""*
and who, by His almighty power, so defends and protects
her, that neither the powers of earth nor the gates of hell
can prevail at all against her; who is enthroned * with God “ σύνθρονο-.
the Father, and placed on the same seat, —to be adored
with divine worship, not only by us men who grovel upon
earth, but by the very angels and archangels and all the [33]
host of heaven above; who, finally, at the end of the world,
shall come, beaming with immeasurable glory and majesty,
accompanied by angels as His ministers, to judge the world,
to bring to light not only all the actions, but also the secrets
of the hearts of all men who have ever lived, to banish His
enemies eveh to hell, but to bestow on such as believe in Him,
and obey His law, not riches, nor honours, nor earthly plea- —
sures, but heavenly glory and everlasting life itself. Can all
this belong to a mere man, or any created being? The man
who shall so think, I confidently say, raves not against faith
only, but against reason itself. This, however, by the way ;
I return from this. digression to the course of my argument.
Sufficient‘ testimony of the ancients, as I suppose, has
been by this time adduced to confute the rash assertion of
Episcopius; let us now, therefore, proceed to another part
of the subject.
i Add to these the remarkable pas- as it has been quoted by me in the
sage in the martyr St. Cyprian’s Defence of the Nicene Creed, ii. 10. 2.
Epistle to Jubaianus, which it is [p. 288.]—Gnrane,
unnecessary for me here to transcribe,
18
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHUROH.
(34
1 preeju-
dicio.
2 pacem.
CHAPTER II.
OF THOSH WHO, IN THE FIRST COENTURY OF CHRISTIANITY, IMPUGNED THE DOCTRINE
OF THE GOSPEL, RESPEOTING CHRIST AS GOD AND MAN.
1, WE come now to the history of the Church; and
whoever consults it will, I am sure, be surprised at the
confidence with which Episcopius could affirm, that* “in
the primitive Churches, which continued from the very times
of the Apostles, during at least three entire centuries, the
belief and profession of this special mode of the Sonship of
Jesus Christ,” (that, I mean, by which He is laid down to have
been before all worlds the Son of God and God,) “ was not
judged to be necessary to salvation.” For this assertion of
his is unquestionably opposed to the truth of all ecclesiastical
history. To make this clear, we must here repeat, what we
have already observed at the commencement of this treatise,
—that the primitive Church could not have adopted a more
certain mode of declaring her judgment, on the necessity of
believing any article of our religion, than by entirely reject-
ing from her communion those who denied it. For an
anathema of the Church was regarded by Christians, in
ancient times, as “the highest anticipation! of the future
judgment,” as Tertullian somewhere says”; and, accordingly,
such as the Church had altogether cast out of her pale, were,
until they repented and sought reconciliation’? with the
Church, regarded as being also out of the state of salvation;
according to the common saying, Extra Ecclesiam nulla
salus (“ Out of the Church is no salvation”). And, indeed,
Episcopius himself, when he thus proposes his question,
“ Whether that fifth mode of the Sonship of Jesus Christ is
necessary to be known and believed in order to salvation,
and [whether] those, who deny it, ought to be anathema.
tized”, thereby not obscurely allows, that to anathematize
* [Page 339. ] > (Summo futuri judicii preejudicio.] Apol. 39. [p. 31.]
They who denied His Dwinity, excluded from the Church ; 23
‘any one for denying a doctrine amounts to the same thing cmap. 1.
as judging and pronouncing the knowledge and belief of that ὃ." 5
doctrine to be necessary to salvation, Therefore, if the primi-
_ tive Churches anathematized such as denied this fifth mode
of the Sonship of Jesus Christ, they must certainly’ be consi- ' omnino.
dered, on the admission of Episcopius himself, to have judged
that that particular mode [of Sonship] was necessary to be
known and believed in order to salvation. Itis plainly evident,
however, from the history of the Church, that no one during
the first three centuries ever denied that mode of Sonship of
Jesus Christ, (whereby, I mean, He was before all worlds
begotten of God the Father Himself, God of God,) without
being on that account (unless he in due time recanted and
himself condemned his own heresy) anathematized by the [85]
Church, that is to say, without being excluded from all com-
munion with the Church—as a stranger and an alien from
the body of Christ; the point which we have undertaken to
prove in this and the following chapter.
2. Of the impious heresy which denies the Divinity of our ©
Saviour, the leaders and first framers were Cerinthus and
_Ebion, who harassed the Church of Christ in the very age of
the Apostles. The only difference between the opinions of
Cerinthus and of Ebion concerning the Lord Jesus was this,
that the former separated Jesus from the Christ, and laid
down that Jesus was a mere man, the son of Joseph and
Mary, on whom, after His baptism, the Christ descended
from above, and when His passion came.on, departed from
Him, and returned to His own pleroma; whereas Ebion
_ (for we shall hereafter shew that this was the name of a
man, who first propagated his heresy in Asia, notwithstand-
ing that some learned men entertain a different opinion)
affirmed that Jesus and Christ were the same, and that
Jesus Christ, the son of Joseph and Mary, was from the
very beginning to the end of his life, nothing else than
man. This difference we learn from Irenzus, who, in
chap. 25 of his first book, thus explains the doctrines of
Cerinthus°; “ But one Cerinthus in Asia taught that the
world was not made by the first? God, but by a certain ? primo.
¢ Cerinthus autem quidam in Asia dum docuit, sed a virtute quadam
non a primo Deo factum esse mun- valde separata et distante ab ea princi-
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 universa.
24, The Ebionites and Cerinthians ;
power, very widely separate and distant from that chief
power, which is over the whole universe’, and ignorant of
the God who is over all. He supposed, also, that Jesus
was not born of a virgin, (for that he thought impossi-
ble,) but was the son of Joseph and Mary, [born] like all
[36]
2 plus
potuisse.
14
3 ea, que
sunt erga
Dominum.
4 non simi-
liter opi-
nantur,
5 Chris-
tum, nescio
quem.
the rest of mankind, but excelling? all other men ἃ in justice,
and prudence, and wisdom; and that after His baptism,
the Christ, in the form of a dove, descended into Him from
that chief power which is over all; and that He then de-
clared the unknown Father, and wrought miracles; that in
the end, however, the Christ flew back again from Jesus;
and Jesus suffered and rose again; but that Christ continued
impassible, being spiritual.” Afterwards, at the very com-
mencement of the next chapter, he thus writes of the
Ebionites®; “Those, however, who are called Ebionites,
agree, indeed, that the world was made by God; but in
those things which respect the Lord*, they do not hold
the same opinions‘ as Cerinthus and Carpocrates.” Here, if
we follow the received reading, Ireneeus manifestly lays down
a twofold difference between the opinions of Cerinthus and
the Ebionites: one respecting the creation of the world, or
[respecting] God the Creator; the other respecting our Lord
Jesus. Cerinthus would have it, that the world was made
not by the first God, but by some power inferior to Him ;
whilst the Ebionites confessed that all things were created
by the first God Himself, the supreme principle of all
things. Again, Cerinthus taught, that a certain Christ® came
down from that supreme power, which is superior to the
Creator of the world, upon Jesus, after His baptism, for a
palitate, quee est super universa, et
ignorante eum, qui est super omnia,
Deum. Jesum autem subjecit (ὑπέ-
Gero), non ex Virgine natum, (im-
possibile enim hoc ei visum est,) fuisse
autem eum Joseph et Marie filium,
similiter ut reliqui omnes homines, et
plus potuisse justitia, et prudentia,
et sapientia pre omnibus ; et post
baptismum descendisse in eum, ab ea
principalitate que est super omnia,
Christum figura columbez; et tunc
annuntiasse incognitum Patrem, et
virtutes perfecisse; in fine autem re-
volasse iterum Christum de Jesu; et
Jesum passum esse et resurrexisse,
Christum autem impassibilem perse-
verasse, existentem spiritalem.—[e.
26,1. p. 105. See the Greek of this
passage, Origenis, sive 8. Hippolyti,
Philosophumena, lib.vii. cap. 33. p.256;
lib. x. cap. 21. p. 327.)
d Pree omnibus: another reading is
hominibus. [The Benedictine Edition
has ab hominibus—B. ὑπὲρ πάντας
τοὺς Aolmovs.—Orig. Philos. |
€ Qui autem dicuntur Ebionei, -
consentiunt quidem mundum a Deo
factum ; ea autem, que sunt erga
Dominum, non similiter ut Cerin-
thus et Carpocrates opinantur.—[ Ibid.
§ 2.]
the distinctions between them. 25
season; whereas the Ebionites did not acknowledge any such map. τι,
chief power, nor, consequently, any Christ, as having come -- δ
upon Jesus from that chief power. If, however, you think the
text should be altered, and with a very learned writer‘ read
consimiliter, instead of non similiter, the meaning of Irenzus,
in that case also, will be, that the Ebionites thus far indeed
entertained the like opinions with Cerinthus, in that they [37]
taught that Jesus was a mere man, born of Joseph and
Mary, (as indeed Irenzeus himself testifies in other passages,
which we have alleged before,) although they rejected that
other fiction of Cerinthus respecting our Lord. And, indeed,
how was it possible, that they should admit that conceit
about a Christ descending upon Jesus from a chief power
which is superior to the Creator of the world, when they
taught that the world was created by the supreme God
Himself? But that this was the teaching of Ebion, Tertul-
lian, as well as Irenzus, expressly testifies in his work, De
Prescript. adv. Hereses, c. 48 8, in these words ; “ This man’s
- [Cerinthus’] successor was Hebion, who did not in every
point agree with Cerinthus, inasmuch as he asserted that the
world was made by God, not by angels.” Irenzus and
Tertullian wrote this of the earliest Ebionites. The next ἢ " posterior.
age witnessed two classes of Ebionites; one, who denied
both the Divinity of our Lord, and His birth of the Virgin ;
the other, who, whilst they denied that Christ was God, yet
agreed with Catholics in allowing that He was conceived and
born of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Ghost; of these we
shall treat hereafter.
3. With regard, however, to the dogma which Cerinthus
and Ebion held in common, namely, that our Saviour Jesus
was a mere man, not the true Son of God, begotten of
God the Father Himself before all worlds, we have already
f Pearson, in his Vindicie Igna- reading, ὁμοίως, lib. vii. c. 34. p. 257.
tiane, part ii. chap. 2, near the end. See also, lib. x. 6, 22. p. 328.
This did not occur to me, while I was 8. Hujus(Cerinthi) successor Hebion
writing my notes on Irenzeus, although fuit, Cerintho non in omni parte con-
I advanced the same conjecture there. sentiens, quod a Deo dicat mundum,
Grasz. [The Benedictine Editor does non ab angelis, factum.—[Page 221.
not agree with Bull and Grabe—B. But the last eight chapters of this
The Greek of the passage in Origenis work are wanting in some MSS.; and
Philosophumena, confirms the con- it is doubted, among critics, whether
jecture of Pearson, Bull, and Grabe; or not they are Tertullian’s.—B. ]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHUROH.
[38]
1 annun-
tiationem.
2 unde.
3 τὰ παρα-
λειπόμενα.
4 circum-
scripsit.
5 delira-
menta.
26 St. John’s Gospel written against these heretics.
shewn with sufficient clearness out of the writings of Ignatius
and Irenzeus, how execrable it was thought by the Church of
the Apostles and that of the age nearest to it; and how alien
from the Church of Christ, and consequently from salvation
by Christ, they who taught that doctrine were held to be in
the first ages. To this testimony should here be added, what
Jerome" repeats from the records of ancient writers; ‘ That
the Apostle John wrote his Gospel, at the request of the
bishops of Asia, in opposition to Cerinthus, and other heretics,
and chiefly against the then rising doctrine of the Ebionites,
who assert, -hat Christ did not exist before [His birth of ]
Mary.” And with regard to Cerinthus, Irenzus agrees with
Jerome, in book iii. chapter 11, where he writes expressly,
that the Apostle John‘ “by the publication’ of the Gospel,
wished to remove that error, which had been sown among
men by Cerinthus.” From all this? it may be concluded,
that the bishops of Asia, (that is, of those parts in which
Cerinthus and Ebion first taught their heresy,) as soon as
they had observed, that those heretics had burst, or rather
crept, into their churches, at once called a synod, and
all met together like good shepherds, “ against the spoilers
of Christ’s flock,” (ἐπὶ λυμεῶνας τῆς Χριστοῦ ποίμνης,) as
Eusebius* says of the Council of Antioch, which was assembled
against Paul of Samosata; and having taken counsel together
as to the means by which they might promptly repress the
heresies which were daily gaining ground, they immediately
besought. the assistance of the Apostle John, who was still
alive; and that on this occasion, and also with the view of
supplying what the. other Evangelists had omitted *, he wrote
his Gospel; at the commencement of which, he by his
apostolic authority circumscribed * (to use the word, which
Irenzeus uses in the passage last cited™) the ravings® of
Cerinthus, and Ebion, and
h Johannes apostolus . . . evange-
lium scripsit, rogatus ab Asiz episco-
pis, adversus Cerinthum, aliosque hee-
reticos, et maxime tune Ebionitarum
dogma consurgens, qui asserunt, Chris-
tum ante Mariam non fuisse.—Catal.
Script. Eccles. in Johanne. [vol. ii.
Ῥ. 880.]
i [Johannes Domini discipulus] vo-
-lens per evangelii annuntiationem
other heretics of that age,
auferre eum, qui a Cerintho insemi-
natus erat hominibus, errorem.—{[cap.
xi. p. 188.]
k Hist. Heel. vii. 27.
1 See Jerome whi supra.
™ (Omnia igitur talia circumscribere
volens discipulus Domini, et regulam
veritatis constituere in Ecclesia, ὅσα.
—Ibid.]
This is evident from the opening of the Gospel. 27
“and established' the rule of truth sities νὰ in. the oes
Church.”
ὃ 8, 4.
4. And indeed any one, moderately acquainted with the | Sane
history of the heresies of the first century, who attentively
reads the opening of John’s Gospel, cannot but at once see
that the Apostle therein pointed out, as it were, with his
finger all those heretics, and pierced through their impious
doctrine with his apostolic sword. In verse 1 he asserts, in
opposition to Cerinthus and Ebion, the divine nature of our
Saviour; “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God.” The Word was in
the beginning, much more therefore was He before Joseph
and Mary, and He was God, and therefore was not a mere
man (ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος). The doctrine of Cerinthus and
other heretics before him, respecting the creation of the world,
the Evangelist alludes to in verse 8, “ All things were made
by Him” (the Word). For those heretics, as has been
observed just above in this chapter, held that this world was
created by inferior powers, far removed from the supreme
God, and altogether alien from Him, and that, against the
will of the supreme God. On the contrary, the Evangelist
teaches, that all things were made by the Word, who was
with God, and was Himself God. In the same verse, in oppo-
sition to the same heretics, he adds; “ And without Him
was not anything made that was made”,’—words which
any one who did not attend to the intention of the Apostle,
would suppose to be merely a useless tautology. The truth,
however, is, that those heretics (as Grotius has rightly ob-
served) maintained, that the things which we behold, 2.6. this
_ visible world, had one creator ; whilst the things invisible, and
such as are above this world, had other creators, each in its
own several pleroma; nothing therefore of the things that
were made is excepted by John from the works of the Logos.
Again, in verses 10, 11, the Evangelist most evidently aims
a blow at the same heretics; “‘ He was in the world, and
the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.
Ὁ [It is strange that our author has words “not anything;” joining the
thus quoted these words, and did not clause, “ what was made,” to the fol-
observe, that all the Antenicene Fa- lowing sentence.—B. ]
thers inserted a full stop after the
[39]
15
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[40]
1 alienum
opus.
2 assereret.
[41]
* proprius
ipsius.
28 St. John’s Gospel directed against the earliest
He came unto His own®, and His own received Him not.”
I mean this ; it was the well-known opinion of Cerinthus and
all other heretics, who separated the maker of this world
from the supreme God, that Christ our Saviour came from
the chief power supreme over all, into this world, as into the
work of another’; and that the purpose of His coming was
to deliver men from the dominion and service of the Creator
of the universe to some kind of freedom, or rather licentious-
ness. In opposition to these the Apostle teaches, that our
Saviour, the Word and Son of God, came from His Father
into this world, as into His own house and work, formed,
i.e. and made by Himself; in order that (as it presently
follows in verses 12, 13,) He might bring’ such as should
receive Him, to the true liberty and adoption of sons of God ;
although ungrateful men, for the most part, did not acknow-
ledge Him their Creator and Redeemer. That this is the
true and genuine meaning and intention of the Apostle in
those words I am thoroughly persuaded, and so accordingly
Irenzus understood them, 111. 11”, where he quotes the
passage, and thus comments on it 4; “ But according to Mar-
cion, and those who are like him,” (Cerinthus, that is, and
other precursors of Marcion, whom Tertullian calls premature
and abortive Marcionites, Against Marc. 11. 85,) “ neither was
the world made by Him, nor did He come unto His own, but
to what was another’s.” So likewise in v. 185, he says, that
John, at the commencement of his Gospel, “ evidently shews
to those who are willing to hear, that is, who have ears, that
there is one God the Father over all, and one Word of God
which is through all, by whom all things were made; and that
this world is His very own’, and was made by Him at the
will of the Father, and not by angels, nor through apostasy,
and revolt, and ignorance, &c.” Furthermore, against the
᾿ © Jn the Greek, εἰς τὰ ἴδια, i. 6. as
though into his own house [or domain).
See John xvi. 32, and. xix. 27; Luke
ii. 49 ; and Nicholas Fuller on Miscel-
τ Preecoquos et abortivos Marcio-
nitas.—[p. 401.]
5. Manifeste ostendens audire volen-
tibus, id est aures habentibus, quoniam
laneous Passages of Scripture, book iv.
17, and Acts xxi. 6.
P See also Novatian, On the Tri-
nity, chap. 14.
4 Secundum autem Marcionem et
€os qui similes sunt ei, neque mundus
per eum factus est, neque in sua venit,
sed in aliena.—p. 188.
unus Deus Pater super omnes, et
unum Verbum Dei, quod per omnes,
per quem omnia facta sunt, et quo-
niam hic mundus proprius ipsius, et
per ipsum factus est voluntate Patris,
et non per angelos, neque per aposta-
siam, et defectionem, et ignorantiam,
&¢e.—[p. 315. ]
heretics ; who all denied that the Word was made Flesh. 29
Simonians, Saturninians, and other Docetz, the Apostle
teaches that the Word, or Son of God, was truly incarnate,
and made man, verse 14; ‘And the Word was made flesh,
and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as
of the Only-begotten of the Father,” &c. Besides, by this
one statement the Evangelist has convicted’ all the heretics of " conclusit.
his own age; since, as Irenzus has rightly said in a passage
which has been already repeatedly quoted, viz. ii. 11°;
“That the Word of God was made flesh, is not in accordance
with the views of any of the heretics.” For the heretics
who at that period entertained any false opinion respecting
the person of the Lord Jesus (as we have observed somewhere
already), may all be divided into two classes. One was that
of the Phantasiasts, who, while acknowledging the manifest
Godhead in our Saviour, took away from Him the human
nature, thinking the conjoming of God with man utterly
unworthy of the Divine majesty. Of these heretics Novatian
wrote well in his Book on the Trinity, chapter 18"; ‘‘ Other
heretics also embraced the manifest Divinity of Christ, so far
as even to say that He was without flesh, and to take away
entirely the humanity which He assumed’, lest they should ? suscep-
impair* in Him the power of the divine name, by associating NES
with it, as they supposed, a human birth. Of this view, however, = το
OHAP. 11.
§ 4.
rent,
we do not approve, but yet we adduce it as an argument that
Christ is so clearly God, that some haye even thought Him to
be only God, taking away His manhood*.” The other class of
heretics, on the contrary side, acknowledged a human nature [42]
only in our Jesus, as the Cerinthians and Ebionites. However,
it is but too plain that both classes denied that the Word of
God was made flesh; that is, that Christ was God and man.
Lastly, in verse 17, the Apostle (as Grotius has remarked)
incidentally confutes a heresy, which Cerinthus and Ebion
t Secundum nullam sententiam
heereticorum Verbum Dei caro factum
est.—[p. 189. ]
ἃ Alii quoque heretici usque adeo
Christi manifestam amplexati sunt di-
vinitatem, ut dixerint illum fuisse sine
carne, et totum illi susceptum detrax-
erint hominem, ne decoquerent in illo
divini nominis potestatem, si huma-
nam illi sociassent, ut arbitrabantur,
nativitatem. Quod tamen nos non
probamus, sed argumentum afferimus,
usque adeo Christum esse Deum, ut
quidam illum, subtracto homine, tan-
tummodo putarint Deum.—[p. 718.]
x Tertullian also observes that those
heretics denied “ that Christ was come
in the flesh, because they presumed it
to be incredible that God became
flesh.” ——“ Negantes Christum in carne
venisse, . . . quoniam incredibile pre-
sumpserant, Deum carnem.”—Adv.
Mare. iii. 8. [p. 401.]
30 St.John in his first Epistle writes against the.same heretics ;
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH,
16
1 ὁ θεόλο-
os.
2 θεολο-
γίαν.
3 οἶκονο-
μίαν.
[45]
held in common, as to the observance of the law of Moses
being necessary to salvation ; “The law was given by Moses;
but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
5. But the holy Apostle, in his first Epistle also, mani-
festly aims a blow at the same heretics, and calls them all
by the one name of Antichrists, as has been observed by
Treneus, Tertullian, and others among the ancients. And,
indeed, the beginning of this Epistle exactly corresponds to
the commencement of the Gospel of John, since in both the
Divine’ opens and reveals that great mystery of godliness
respecting God manifested in the flesh, unfolding with no
little dignity of language both the doctrine of the Divinity’
and that of the Incarnation® of our Saviour. With regard
to the Gospel this is clear; and the Epistle thus begins;
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked
upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life; (for
the Life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear wit-
ness and shew unto you that eternal Life, which was with the
Father, and was manifested unto us;) that [I say] which we
have seen and heard, declare we unto you, &c.” Here, in
opposition to the Docetz, who said that our Saviour was not
really man, John affirms that he himself and the other
Apostles had both heard, and with their own very eyes beheld,
and also with their hands handled, “the Word of Life,” or life-
giving Word (τὸν λόγον τῆς ζωῆς) ; thus calling all the appro-
priate senses to bear witness to the reality of His incarnation.
Against those, on ,the other hand, who maintained that the
Lord Jesus was a mere man, the Apostle teaches that the
Word was ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, “from the beginning,” (i.e. of the
creation, as Gen. i. 1, and John i, 1,) and, consequently,
that He did not then first begin to exist when He was born
of Mary. In the same passage, and against the same [here-
tics], he asserts that “the Life, the eternal Life,” (again
meaning the Word, see John i. 4, and 1 John v. 20,) was
previously ‘‘ with the Father,” πρὸς tov Πατέρα : (the same
in meaning as the πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, John i. 1;) but afterwards,
that is in the flesh which He took upon Him, He was made
manifest unto men. ‘This is the simple and obvious sense of
this passage, which, accordingly, was the received sense in the
—————eS ee CU
the mutual agreement of his Gospel and Epistle. 31
ancient Church, as Tertullian informs us in his Treatise omar. nm.
against Praxeas, chap. 15. The novel interpretation which ὃ ἢ δ᾽
they put on the passage, who make the “ Word of Life” to
signify the gospel, or doctrine of eternal life, is certainly
most absurd. For, not to mention other objections to such
an interpretation, what sense, I ask, would there be in saying
that the Apostles had not only heard the gospel, but had
beheld it with their own eyes, and handled it with their own
hands? But the mutual agreement of the commencement
of St. John’s Gospel and the beginning of his first Epistle
was long ago observed by that great man, Dionysius of
Alexandria, in the second book of his work Upon the Pro-
mises (Περὶ ἐπαγγελιῶν), in the following words’; “ For
the Gospel and the Epistle mutually harmonize, and begin
alike. The one says, ‘ In the beginning was the Word ;’ the
other, ‘That which was from the beginning.’ The Gospel
says, ‘ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us ;
and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten
of the Father.’ The Epistle says the same, with a very little
. variation ; ‘That which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands
have handled, of the Word of Life; and the Life was mani-
fested.’ Such is his prelude’; in which he aims, as he plainly ᾿ ταῦτα
intimates in what follows, at those who alleged that the Lord (rover,
was not come in the flesh. Wherefore he purposely adds; [44]
‘And we testify that we have seen, and declare unto you
that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was mani-
fested unto γι: That which we have seen and heard declare
we unto you.’ He is consistent with himself’, and does not * ἔχεται
wander from his proposed subject.” ch
6. In the second chapter of the same Epistle, after the
Apostle had warned the faithful, that there were even then
Υ͂ ἸΣυνάδουσι. «μὲν γὰρ ἀλλήλοις τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον καὶ ἡ ἐπιστολὴ, ὁμοίως τε
«ir τὸ μέν φησιν, Ἔν ἀρχῇ ἦν. ὃ
os’ ἡ δὲ, °O ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς" τὸ μέν
ie, Kal ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, καὶ
ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡ ἡμῖν' καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν
δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ
Πατρός" ἡ δὲ τὰ αὐτὰ σμικρῷ παρηλλαγ-
μένα" Ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς
ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα, καὶ ai
χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, περὶ τοῦ λόγου
τῆς ζωῆς᾽ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη. ταῦτα
γὰρ προανακρούεται, διατεινόμενος, ὡς ἐν
τοῖς ἑξῆς ἐδήλωσε, πρὸς τοὺς οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ
φάσκοντας ἐληλυθέναι τὸν Κύριον. δίο
καὶ συνῆψεν ἐπιμελῶς, καὶ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν,
μαρτυροῦμεν, | καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν
Cony τὴν αἰώνιον, ἥτις ἣν πρὸς τὸν πα-
τέρα, καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν" ὃ ἑωράκαμεν
καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν. ἔχε-
ται αὑτοῦ, καὶ τῶν προθέσεων οὐκ ἀφίστα-
ται.---Αρυὰ Euseb. Heel. Hist. vii. 25.
p. 275. edit. Valesii. [p. 354. et Dio-
nysii Op. p. 80. ]
892 Heretics who denied the identity of Jesus and the Christ.
sovemznt many antichrists, and that they had gone forth out of the
OF THE
camnorze Very bosom of the Apostolic Church, verses 18, 19, (he gives
CHURCH.
[45]
1 glium.
17
the name antichrists to those heretics, who taught false and
impious doctrines respecting the person of Jesus Christ,) then
in verses 22, 23, he designates some of them by their proper
characteristics; “Who is a liar, but he that denieth that
Jesus is the Christ ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father
and the Son: whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath
not the Father.” Among the heretics of the first century,
who falsely assumed the name of Christians, strange to say,
there were those who denied, that Jesus was the Christ. The
Cerinthians, for instance, as we have shewn from Irenzus in
the beginning of the present chapter, separated Jesus from
Christ, teaching that Jesus was one’ [being], and Christ
another. Accordingly Epiphanius, Heresy xxvui., which
is that of the Cerinthians, expressly testifies, that they
taught, ov τὸν Ἰησοῦν εἶναι Χριστὸν, “ that Jesus is not the.
Christ.” Against such heretics these words of John were
directed, “‘ Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is
the-Christ ?”? As well as those in chap. v. verse 1; ‘‘ Who-
soever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God ;”
as Ireneeus, the best interpreter of the Apostle, informs us,
iii. 18%. Indeed, you would seek in vain for others, to
whom those passages would more suitably apply. For it is
most manifest from the context, that the Apostle is not
speaking of those avowed opponents of our religion, who
denied that Jesus was the Christ or Messiah foretold by
the prophets, and taught that another Messiah was to be
expected, but of the false prophets, who deceived [men]
under the mask of a Christian profession. The following
words of the Apostle; “ He is antichrist, that denieth the
Father and the Son; whosoever denieth the Son, the same
hath not the Father;” evidently enough glance at the
opinion which was held by Cerinthus and Ebion in common.
For both of them utterly denied, that Jesus was the true Son
of God, begotten of God the Father, before [His birth of ]
Mary, and so before all created things; and, therefore, in
the judgment of the Apostle, neither did they acknowledge
God the Father in reality ; since indeed, after the revelation
* [e. 16. pp. 206, 207.]
7
a
,
=
Γ
Υ
Ι
ἢ
a
The Docete alluded to in 1 Johniv., shewn from Polycarp. 33
of the Gospel, no one can rightly worship or believe in . ΑΝ
God the Father, without, at the same time, embracing God
the Son.
7. Again, in chap. iv. verse 1 of his Epistle, the ποκα of’
Christ is guarding Christians against the heretics of his own
- age, in these words; “ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but
try the spirits, whether they are of God ; because many false
prophets are gone out into the world.” And in the verses
which follow he proposes two criteria, whereby those false
prophets might be distinguished; one of which clearly applies
to the Docetex, the other to the Cerinthians and the Ebion-
ites. The Docete are pointed out’ in the 2d and 3d verses ;
“Hereby know ye the Spirit of God; every spirit that con-
fesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: and
every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in
‘ the flesh, is not of God; and this is that spirit of antichrist,
whereof you haye heard that it should come, and even now
᾿ς already is it in the world.” On this passage of the Apostle
we have a trustworthy commentator, Polycarp, I mean, the
disciple of, John, who quotes the latter part of the passage
in his Epistle to the Philippians, and expressly expounds
it of heretics, who professed the name of Christ, and not
of open enemies of Christianity, who denied that Jesus
was the true Messiah, on the ground of His advent in the
flesh, that is, in a state of humility (as Grotius, quite incor-
rectly, understood the Apostle.) For there, after exhorting
the Philippians to serve the Lord Jesus with fear and all
reverence, the apostolic man immediately adds*;
“ Be ye
zealous concerning that which is good, avoiding offences and
false brethren, and such as bear the name of the Lord in
hypocrisy, who cause foolish men to go astray, ‘ for every one
that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is
antichrist ;? and he who confesses not the testimony of the
cross, is of the devil.”” There were therefore false brethren,
professing the name of Christ, who denied that Jesus Christ
was come in the flesh. This is also plain enough from the
® ζηλωταὶ περὶ τὸ καλὸν, ἀπεχόμενοι
σκανδάλων, καὶ τῶν ψευδαδέλφων, καὶ
τῶν ἐν ὑποκρίσει φερόντων τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ
Κυρίου, οἵτινες ἀποπλανῶσι κενοὺς ἀν-
θρώπους. πᾶς γὰρ, ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ
BULL,—J. 0, 0.
Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι,
ἀντίχριστός ἐστι" καὶ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ
τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ, ἐκ τοῦ Διαβό-
λου ἐστί. [8 6. p. 188,]}
D
JUDGMENT
OF THE
OATHOLIO
DHUROH.
1 σαρκοφό-
pov.
2 dy verpo-
φόρος.
[48]
18
34 That they who “ denied that Jesus Christ had come in
object of the Apostle John, in giving the marks and signs by
which the faithful might discern those false prophets from
orthodox teachers. For what need was there of marks, to
distinguish the open and avowed enemies of the Christian
religion? Now who those heretics really were who, while
professing Christianity, denied that Jesus Christ was come in
the flesh, we have ‘stated several times already; for Menander,
Saturninus, and other Docete of the first century (whose.
heresy was reproduced by Marcion at the very time when
Polycarp wrote these words), utterly denied that our Lord
had come in true human flesh’ into this world, or had truly
suffered and been crucified; and accordingly, as Polycarp
says, by no means confessed the testimony of the cross.
8. This heresy is also frequently censured by another dis-
ciple and intimate friend of John, Ignatius, in his Epistles,
and especially in that to the Smyrneans, which is almost
entirely directed against that pernicious doctrine. In one
place he says; “ For in what respect does a man benefit me,
if he praises me, but blasphemes my Lord, not acknowledging
Him to be incarnate’? He, who does not confess this,’
completely denies Him, and is in a state of death?” Now
who does not see that the expression of Ignatius in this
passage, “ not acknowledging Him to be incarnate,” (capxo-
φόρον,) is just the same as John’s, “ confesseth not that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh” (ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα) ἢ But a
little before in the same Epistle Ignatius had laid open the
heresy of the Docetze, as opposed to the Catholic doctrine, in
these words °; “ And He (the Lord) truly suffered, as He also
truly raised up Himself, not as certain unbelievers assert,
that it was in appearance that He suffered, whereas they
themselves are only in appearance.” The sense of which is;
they who teach that our Lord was made man and suffered as -
a phantom and in appearance only, are themselves to be
regarded indeed as Christians only as phantoms and in
appearance. Presently after he confutes those phantasiasts -
from the remarkable history of Jesus shewing to His disci-
Ὁ ri γάρ με ὠφελεῖ τις, εἰ ἐμὲ ἐπαινεῖ, © καὶ ἀληθῶς ἔπαθεν, ὡς καὶ ἀληθῶς
τὸν δὲ xupidy μου βλασφημεῖ, μὴ ὅμολο- ἀνέστησεν ἑαυτὸν, οὐχ’ ὥσπερ ἄπιστοί
γῶν αὐτὸν σαρκοφόρον; ὁ δὲ τοῦτο μὴ τινες λέγουσιν, τὸ δοκεῖν αὐτὸν πεπον-
λέγων, τελείως αὐτὸν ἀπήρνηται, ὧν θέναι, αὐτοὶ τὸ δοκεῖν dvtes.—Page 2.
νεκροφόρος.--- 10. Voss. p.4. [§ 5. ».86.1 [8 2. p. 84.1
or
the Flesh,” were the Docete, shewn also from St. Ignatius. 35 |
ples, and especially to Thomas, after His resurrection, His cmap. τι.
body, and the wounds inflicted thereon, to be handled’. —.
On this he observes*; ‘ And immediately they touched spe a i.
and believed, being subdued’ by His flesh and His Spirit ;” 2 μρατη-
that is, they were convinced by that trial*, and believed that igi ei
the Lord Jesus was both very Man and very God. For “the mento.
Spirit ” (πνεῦμα) in Christ, especially when It is opposed to
His flesh, as we have shewn elsewhere °, is used by writers of
the first century to signify His Divine Nature*. For, as is 4 τὴν θεῖαν
plain, Ignatius manifestly alludes to the confession of Thomas φύσιν.
when, after seeing and. handling the wounds of Christ, he
burst out into the exclamation, “My Lord and my God!”
John xx. 28. The holy man presently designates those [49]
heretics ta θηρία ἀνθρωπόμορφα, “ beasts in human form ;”’
meaning that, inasmuch as they taught in opposition to
what was manifestly true, that our Lord was man only in
appearance, they deserved to be accounted as brute beasts,
clothed with the form of men, not as men endued with
rational faculties. Lastly, he observes of the same persons,
that they entirely abstained from the Lord’s supper!; “ Be-
cause they did not confess, that the eucharist was the flesh
of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which had suffered for our sins.”
That is, they did not believe that our Lord was made very
man, and had truly suffered on the cross, (which was ex-
pressed by Polycarp’s words, “ not confessing the testimony
of the cross,”’) and accordingly they refused to celebrate the
memorial of our Lord’s passion. These most clear testimonies
of two disciples of John allow us not to doubt, but that the
false prophets and the antichrists, who, the Apostle says,
denied that Christ had come in the flesh, were no other than
Menander, Saturninus, Basilides and the other phantasiasts
of the first century. And that the Apostle did in the passage
in question refer to these, is observed, after Ignatius and Poly-
carp, by Ireneus, by Tertullian, and by almost all the ancient
fathers, who lived near to the time of the Apostles.
9. Let us proceed with the Apostle. After some observa-
a καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτοῦ ἥψαντο, καὶ ἐπί- f [εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσευχῆς ἀπέ-
_ στεῦσαν, κρατηθέντες τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ χυνται] διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν ' τὴν εὐχα-
καὶ τῷ πνεύματι. --- Page 8. [ὃ 3. p. ριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν
35. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὴν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν
© Def. Fid. Nic. i. 2. 5. [p. 48.] nwadovcav.—Page 5. [§ 7. p. 36.]
D2
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 χαρακτη-
ρισμῷ de-
signat,
2 nota.
[50]
86 That the Cerinthians and Ebionites are referred to,
tions in the same chapter, he next points out, in verse 15,
by its characteristic mark’, a second heresy concerning the
person of Christ, the very opposite to the mad conceits of the
Docetz ; “ Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of
God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God; the opposite
clause, which was expressed in the former mark ’, is here left
to be understood; ‘‘ But whosoever shall not confess that
Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth not in him, nor he in
God.” There cannot however be a doubt, that the Apostle
in these words requires a confession of that Son of God,
whom he had already spoken of in part in this Epistle, and
whom he still more fully sets forth in his Gospel,—I mean,
the Son of God, who is the Word of God the Father, who
was in the beginning, and was with God, and was Himself
God, by whom all things were made, ὅσο. That the true and
proper Son of God, who was born of God the Father Himself
before every creature, is meant in these passages, is not
denied by the adversaries with whom our present controversy
lies, and indeed is most manifest to all, who are not blind in
the light of noon. Neither Cerinthus, however, nor Ebion
after him, acknowledged that our Jesus was the Son of God
in such a sense as this, for they both taught, that Jesus was
a mere man; who had no existence before [His birth of]
' Mary; and therefore they both, in the Apostle’s judgment,
were aliens from God. And because at that time the heresy ἢ
of Cerinthus was increasing more than any other, the Apostle
in this Epistle throughout commends, urges, and inculcates
that faith, by which we believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
See in addition to the passages already quoted, chap. iii.
verse 23, also verses 1O—13, 20. But these notes, those,
I mean, which are given here in the fourth, and also in
the second chapter of this Epistle, were quite sufficient to
enable the faithful of the apostolic age to distinguish all
- the heretics who at that time taught false and impious
doctrines concerning the person of our Saviour. Of these
notes this is the sum; that every teacher who confessed
one Jesus Christ, the very Son of God, who was truly made
man for the sake of man’s salvation, was of God; (that is,
as Estius well observes, in so far as he acknowledged and
taught that particular doctrine ;) but that, on the other hand,
ΡΝ
in 1 John iv. 15, and condemned by the Apostle. 37
whosoever did not confess this, was to be regarded as a false
prophet, and an antichrist. Those notes, however, are chiefly
insisted on by the Apostle, which mark the heretics, who
denied either that our Saviour was true man or true God;
as Tertullian, De Prescript. adv. Heres. c. 33%, has observed
in the following words ; “ John in his Epistle calls those espe-
cially antichrists, who denied that Christ was come in the
flesh, and those who did not think that Jesus was the Son of
God; the former opinion was maintained by Marcion” (and
. before him by Menander, Saturninus and others), “the latter
by Hebion.” 1 have pursued this subject at greater length ;
because from this it is clear, not only from the remains of the
most ancient fathers, but also from all the writings of the
Apostles, that there were even in the very age of the Apostles
those who denied the divinity of Christ our Lord, and who (far
from being considered as brethren and true members of the
Church) were for that very reason accounted by the Apostles
as heretics, and even as antichrists. Moreover, from this it is
also manifest, that, as the doctrine respecting the incarnation
of the Son of God, (or respecting Christ the God-man_', true
God and true Man,) was from the very commencement of
the Gospel variously assailed by various heretics, so was it
at all times most religiously preserved and guarded by all
means and with all zeal by the true pastors of the Church,
as the very head and foundation of the Christian faith.
10. Now touching those God-denying? heretics of the first
century, the Cerinthians and the Ebionites, I should refrain
from saying anything more, had not the author of an impious
treatise, under the title of Jrenicum Irenicorum, put forth a
most monstrous notion about the Ebionites, which we must
certainly not pass over. For if that be true which this
author strains every nerve to prove, there will plainly be
an end not only of the necessity of the article of our
Saviour’s divinity, but also of the defence of its very truth ;
and the Ebionites, at least the later ones, so far from being
heretics, must be regarded as having been the only faithful
guardians of the doctrine and tradition of the Apostles
5. In Epistolaeos maxime antichris- putarent, Jesum esse Filium Dei; illud
tos vocat (Johannes), qui Christum Marcion, hoe Hebion vindicavit.—
negarent in carne venisse, et quinon [page 214.]
CHAP. 11.
§ 9, 10.
[51]
19
1 Christo
θεανθρώπῳ.
2 »
ἀρνησι-
θέοις.
[52]
«
38 Sandius maintained that the Ebionites represented the
gupement concerning Christ. For indeed he boldly affirms", that the
OF THH
CATHOLIC
CHUROH.
ide
Christo
ψιλῷ
ἀνθρώπῳ.
2 gcilicet.
[53]
Ebionites (such, 1 mean, as acknowledged Christ’s birth of
a Virgin, but denied His divinity) were really no other than
the Nazarenes, the Christians of Jerusalem, the first and
most ancient of all Christians; who, after receiving the faith
of Christ, continued to observe the law, and who scrupu-
lously maintained and handed down the doctrine of the mere
humanity of Christ’, which, as he would have us think ’, they
had been taught by the Apostles; their Church remaining
until the age of Adrian, by whom they were driven from
their country, and thenceforward were called in contempt
by other Christians, Ebionites, and accounted as heretics.
Now, with this discovery of his own, this very vain man
is wonderfully well pleased, and vaunts of it much, as a
tradition, which, he says, has a far greater antiquity and
certainty than all the traditions of the Catholics for the
Divinity of the Son.
1]. It is, however, clear enough from what we have already
said, that this is a most foolish and shameless fable of the
heretic’s own. For, even if the sacred oracles which we
have adduced were silent, which of the ancients, which of
those apostolic writers whom we have quoted, ever heard
‘this tradition even mentioned? Which of them, rather,
has not given us his testimony in confirmation of the very
opposite tradition? But this much boasted tradition can be
refuted from ecclesiastical history, with the utmost facility
and certainty. For Eusebius expressly testifies, that he had
been informed out of the writings of the ancients, that all
the fifteen bishops, who were of the circumcision, and pre-
sided over the Church of Jerusalem down to the time of
Adrian, embraced the pure and sincere knowledge of Christ.
He thus writes concerning them in his Eccl. Hist. iv. 5';
“1 have not been able to find anywhere the dates of the
bishops of Jerusalem preserved in writing; all of them,
however, are reported to have sat but a very short time.
But this I have learned from written records, that up to the
siege of the Jews, in the reign of Adrian, fifteen bishops pre-
h Jrenic. p. 79. and p, 111, &c, βίους αὐτοὺς λόγος κατέχει γενέσθαι.
i [τῶν γε μὴν ἐν ἹἹεροσολύμοις ἐπισκός τοσοῦτον δ᾽ ἐξ ἐγγράφων παρείληφα, ὡς
πων τοὺς χρόνους γραφῇ σωζομένους μέχρι τῆς κατὰ ᾿Αδριανὸν ᾿Ιουδαίων
οὐδαμῶς εὗρον. κομιδὴ γὰρ οὖν βραχυ- πολιορκίας πεντεκαίδεκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν
“ε΄. ὟΣ
first Christians of Jerusalem —refuted from Eusebius. 89
sided over that Church in unbroken succession ; all of whom,
they say, were Hebrews by origin, and had received the know-
ledge of Christ sincerely.” But, at any rate, Eusebius would
on no account have said this of them, if he had learnt from
those ancient authorities, that they entertained the same
views of Christ as the Ebionites; for they are the very men
whom he condemns as impious, because they denied that
Christ was God the Word before all ages; and further de-
clares them to be brought under the thraldom of the devil.
For in his Eccl. Hist. iii. 27, he thus writes of the two sorts
OHAP, II.
§ 10, 11.
of Ebionites*; “Others, whom the malignant demon was >
unable to remove altogether from the religion of Christ,
having found weak in other points, he reduced them under
his power. These were fitly termed Ebionites by the an-
cients; as entertaining very poor and low notions of Christ.
For they deemed Him to be a mere common’ man, being
nothing else than a man, who by advancing in virtue had
become righteous, but was begotten from the union of man
with Mary. Moreover, they regarded the observance of the
law to be indispensably necessary to themselves, as though
they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone, and a
life in accordance therewith. Others besides them, bearing
the same name, avoided, indeed, the absurd opinion of the
former, not denying that Christ was born of the Virgin and
of the Holy Ghost: yet these also, equally with the others,
refused to acknowledge that He preexisted, as being God the
Word and Wisdom, BUT WERE PERVERTED WITH THE SAME
IMPIETY AS THE FORMER; especially as they were zealous, like
them, to observe punctiliously the bodily service of the law.”
αὐτόθι γεγόνασιν ἐπισκόπων διαδοχαὶ]
ods πάντας Ἑβραίους φασὶν ὄντας ἀνέ-
- καθεν, τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ γνησίως
καταδέξασθαι. ---- [Euseb. E. H. iv. 4.
Bp. Bull cites the old Latin version,
except in the last clause. |
K [Ϊἄλλους δὲ 6 πονηρὸς δαίμων, τῆς
περὶ τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ διαθέσεως
ἀδυνατῶν ἐκσεῖσαι, θάτερα ληπτοὺς
εὑρὼν ἐσφετερίξζετο. ᾿Εβιωναίους τού-
τους οἰκείως ἐπεφήμιζον οἱ πρῶτοι, πτω-
χῶς καὶ ταπεινῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ
δοξάζοντας λιτὸν μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸν καὶ
κοινὸν ἡγοῦντο κατὰ προκοπὴν ἤθους
αὐτοῦ μόνον ἄνθρωπον δεδικαιωμένον,
ἐξ ἀνδρός τε κοινωνίας καὶ τῆς Μαρίας
γεγεννημένον δεῖν δὲ πάντως αὐτοῖς
νομικῆς θρησκείας, ὡς μὴ ἂν διὰ μόνης
τῆς εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν πίστεως καὶ τοῦ κατ᾽
αὐτὴν βίου σωθησομένοις. ἄλλοι δὲ παρὰ
τούτους τῆς αὐτῆς ὄντες προσηγορίας
τὴν μὲν τῶν εἰρημένων ἔκτοπον διεδί-
δρασκον ἀτοπίαν, éx παρθένου καὶ ἁγίου
πνεύματος μὴ ἀρνούμενοι γεγονέναι τὸν
Κύριον,] οὐ μὴν ἔθ᾽ ὁμοίως καὶ οὗτοι
προῦπάρχειν αὐτὸν, Θεὸν λόγον ὄντα
καὶ σοφίαν, ὁμολογοῦντες, τῇ τῶν προ-
τέρων περιετρέποντο δυσσεβείᾳ᾽ μάλιστα
ὅτε καὶ τὴν σωματικὴν περὶ τὸν νόμον
λατρείαν ὁμοίως ἐκείνοις περιέπειν ἐσ-
πούδαζον.--- Ibid. iii. 27.]
1 simpli-
cem ac
vulgarem.
[54]
20
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
OHURCH.
1 minores
Ebionitas,
[55]
40 Lusebius’ statement respecting the early Christians of
Unquestionably, from a comparison of these two passages of
Eusebius, it becomes very clear, that the later Ebionites (whom
Nicephorus, in his Eccl. Hist. xiii. 18, calls “the 1655) dif-
fered from the first Christians of Jerusalem in two respects.
1. Those Ebionites entertained impious opinions concerning
Christ ; inasmuch as they did not by any means allow, that He
existed before His nativity in the flesh as God the Word and
Wisdom; whereas the first Christians of Jerusalem embraced
the knowledge of Christ in sincerity. 2. Those Ebionites
insisted on the Mosaical rites, as absolutely necessary to be
observed, and said that the faith of Christ without the observ-
ance of them was not sufficient for salvation. This Eusebius
expressly asserts of the earlier or greater Ebionites, whilst
of the later Ebionites also he affirms that they were zealous of
the law of Moses “‘equally with the others” (ὁμοίως ἐκείνοις) ;
and further, he not obscurely intimates that it was in this
very point that their impiety in part consisted. For Eusebius’
meaning manifestly is, that those Ebionites had superadded
the pernicious dogma of the absolute necessity of observing
the law of Moses to that other impiety of theirs, which was
indeed very great and of itself deadly beyond measure,
—I mean, their denial of the divinity of Christ; thus
they were heretics and aliens from salvation, on more than
one account. Upon the Christians of Jerusalem whom he
mentions, however, Eusebius fastens no charge of heresy,
although they also observed circumcision and other Mosaic —
rites; (according, that is, to the practice which the Apostles |
themselves had originally conceded to their infirmity ;) the
reason of which, no doubt, was, that they both entertained
right views about Christ, and did not at all require from
other Christians of the Gentiles, the observance of the cere-
monial law. Indeed, if they had required this, they would
have directly opposed the decree of the Council of Jerusalem,
_ at which James, the first bishop of that see, presided. It is
not to be doubted, that Eusebius thought those Christians of
Jerusalem culpable, at least such of them as lived after the
destruction of the temple by Titus, because they did not at
length perceive that the ceremonial worship, which had been
prescribed in the law of Moses, was utterly abolished. Never-
theless, he commends them for this, because, meanwhile,
Jerusalem ; illustrated out of Sulpicius Severus. 41
they did not obtrude upon other Christians those legal rites
which they themselves observed ; and because in other
particulars they sincerely embraced the Catholic faith, and
especially that part of it which relates to the person of Christ
our Lord. :
12. But with this testimony of Eusebius, respecting the
primitive Church of Jerusalem and its bishops, Sulpicius
Severus, an historian of very great weight, quite agrees, and
even throws additional light on it, Sacr. Hist. ii. 451, where he
thus writes of them; ‘‘ Inasmuch as the Christians were sup-
posed to be, for the most part, a Jewish body, (for in those
days the Church at Jerusalem had its Bishop only of the
circumcision,) he (Adrian) ordered a cohort to be constantly
on guard, for the purpose of preventing all Jews from enter-
ing Jerusalem. This indeed turned out to the advantage
of the Christian faith ; because, αἱ that time, nearly all believed
in Christ as God under the observance of the law. The Lord
doubtless so ordering that dispensation, that the freedom of
the faith and of the Church might be delivered from thral-
dom to the law.” He here said, “nearly all,” because at
that period there were even at Jerusalem faithful men from
among the Gentiles, although fewer in number, who believed
in the Divinity of Christ without any observance of the law.
Now that which Eusebius relates from ancient authority, of
those Christians of the circumcision at Jerusalem,—that
they “had sincerely embraced the knowledge (or faith) of
Christ,” is here testified of the same persons (only somewhat
more clearly) by Sulpicius, when he affirms that ‘ they
believed in Christ as God.” Nothing certainly can be more
manifest than this; so that if the Nazarenes, as they were
called, were (as nearly all the learned are agreed) the de-
scendants and offspring of the Christians of the circumcision
at Jerusalem; and if that be true, which the author of the
Irenicum says, that they held Christ to be merely man, we
' Quia Christiani ex Judeis potis- arceret,
Quod quidem Christians
simum putabantur, (namque tum
fidei proficiebat: quia tum pene om-
Hierosolyme non nisi ex circum-
cisione habebat ecclesia sacerdotem,)
militum cohortem custodias in perpe-
tuum agitare jussit (Adrianus), que
Judzeos omnes Hierosolyme aditu
nes Christum Deum sub legis observa-
tione credebant. Nimirum id Domino
ordinante dispositum, ut legis servitus
a libertate fidei atque ecclesiz tolle-
retur,
OHAP. IT.
811, 12.
[56]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 ipsi.
[57]
21
42 The doctrine of the Nazarenes; from St. Augustine ;
must certainly conclude, that they had departed from the
faith of their fathers and those who had gone before them.
18. It is however clear, from good authority, that even
the Nazarenes held more exalted views of Christ our Lord.
Philastrius at any rate attributes to them no heresy respect-
ing the person of Christ. While Augustine, in his work on
Heresies, after treating in chap. 8™ of the Cerinthians as
having taught “that men ought to be circumcised in the
flesh, and observe other precepts of the law of this kind:
that Jesus was simply man,” &c.; goes on in chaps. 9 and 10
thus to expound the doctrines of the Nazarenes and the |
Ebionites; “ Although the Nazarenes confess that Christ is
the Son of God,” (and consequently thus far differ from the
Cerinthians, who regard Him as man only,) “yet they ob-
serve all the ceremonies of the ancient law,” (in this agreeing
with the Cerinthians,) “‘ which Christians by the tradition of
the Apostles have been taught not to observe carnally, but to
understand spiritually. The Hebionites also for their part’”’
(z.e. just like the Cerinthians, of whom he had been speaking
a little before) “‘ say that He is onlyaman. They observe the
carnal ordinances of the law, &c.” Here it is plain (in spite
of the cavils of the author of the Jrenicum) that Augustine
meant to distinguish the Nazarenes both from the Cerin-
thians and from the Ebionites in this point, that the Naza-
renes acknowledged that Christ .was not man only, as the
Cerinthians and the Ebionites thought, but the Son of
God, and consequently God. Besides, all are aware what
Augustine meant by confessing Christ to be the Son of God.
For he acknowledged no other Son of God but Him who
before all worlds" was begotten of the Father, God of God.
But further, there is a very explicit testimony of Jerome
in an Epistle addressed to Augustine, Epist. Ixxxix.°, in.
which he thus writes concerning Cerinthus, Ebion, and the
m Carne circumcidi oportere, atque
alia hujusmodi legis preecepta servari ;
Jesum hominem tantummodo fuisse.
.... Nazarei cum Dei Filium con-
fiteantur esse Christum, omnia tamen
veteris legis observant, quee Christiani
per apostolicam traditionem non ob-
servare carnaliter, sed spiritaliter in-
telligere didicerunt. Hebionzei Chris-
tum etiam ipsi tantummodo hominem
dicunt. Mandata carnalia legis obser-
vant, &c.—[Vol. viii. p. 7.]
» Our reverend author has vindi-
cated this assertion from the cavils of
an adversary in a treatise now first
published, entitled, Primitiva et Apo-
stolica Traditio, &c. i. 7.—GnraBe.
[See the translation of that Treatise
in this volume. |
ο Si hoe verum est, in Cerinthi et
from the statements of St. Jerome writing to St. Augustine. 48
Nazarenes; “ If this is true, we are falling into the heresy of onav. τι.
Cerinthus and Ebion, who, though they believed in Christ, 51% 1*
were anathematized by the fathers only for this, that they
mixed the ceremonies of the law with the gospel of Christ,
and confessed the new in such a way as not to let go the
old. Why should I speak of the Ebionites, who falsely
pretend that they are Christians? To this very day there
exists through all the synagogues of the East a heresy
among the Jews, called that of the Minzi?, who are com-
monly called Nazarenes; these believe in Christ, as the Son
of God, born of the Virgin Mary; and they say that it was
He who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose from the
dead, in whom we also believe. But whilst they would be
both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Chris-
tians.” In this passage Jerome expressly says with Augustine
that the Nazarenes believed in Christ, the Son of God; and,
not content with saying this, he explains his meaning by
affirming that they believed in that Son of God, “in whom
we also (the Catholics) believe ;” so that in this doctrine of
the Son of God he acknowledges no difference whatever
between the Catholics and the Nazarenes*, That this was
Jerome’s meaning will be still more clearly evident from his
object in the passage cited. A controversy had arisen be-
tween, Jerome and Augustine on the words of St. Paul
respecting St. Peter, Gal. 11. 11; “I withstood him to the
’ face ;? whether, that is, Paul did seriously and in earnest
reprehend Peter, or whether the whole of what was done be-
tween them was not done feignedly only, and, as it were, in
a kind of religious simulation’, Augustine rightly thought ! per sane-
the former, while Jerome maintained the latter, in opposi- δῖα αὐυδῃ-
. . dam simu-
tion to the manifest truth, (although some of the Greek lationem.
[58]
Ebionis heresin delabimur, qui cre-
dentes in Christo propter hoc solum a
Patribus anathematizati sunt, quod
legis ceremonias Christi evangelio
miscuerunt, et sic nova confessi sunt,
ut vetera non omitterent. Quid di-
cam de Hebionitis, qui Christianos
esse se simulant? Usque hodie per
totas Orientis synagogas [et a Phari-
seis nune usque damnatur:] inter
Judzeos heeresis est, que dicitur Mi-
neeorum, quos vulgo Nazarzeos nuncu-
pant, qui credunt in Christum, Filium
Dei, natum de Virgine Maria, et eum
dicunt esse, qui sub Pontio Pilato
passus est et resurrexit, in quem et
nos eredimus. Sed dum volunt et
Judeei esse, et Christiani, nec Judei
sunt, nec Christiani.”—[Ep. exii. 13.
vol. i. p. 740.]
P [From the Hebrew myn, which
means the same as heretics.—B. ]
4 Our author replies to a cavil on
this. point also, alleged by the same
adversary, in the passage above cited,
ὃ 8.—Grase. [See translation of the
Primitiva Traditio, i. 8.]
JUDGMENT .
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
[59]
44 The point at issue between Jerome and Augustine ;
commentators agree in the view,) rendering the words κατὰ
πρόσωπον, not. coram (openly), but secundum faciem. (in
appearance), that is, feignedly, and not in earnest. The
principal argument by which he defended his opinion (into
which, as he candidly admits, he had fallen accidentally,
when—after reading some Greek commentaries, and bringing
together very many subjects into his mind—he was engaged
in dictating either his own or another’s thoughts to his
amanuensis, whom he had hastily summoned, without remem-
bering meanwhile the order, sometimes not even the words, or
their meaning) was as follows; that Paul himself occasionally
Judaized, and therefore could not, with any justice, reprove
Peter for that error in which he was himself involved. To
this argument Augustine rightly replies, that Peter had been
rebuked by Paul, not for observing a custom of the Jews under
which he had been born and educated, although he refrained
from observing it when among Gentiles; but because he
wished to impose it on the Gentiles by the example, that is,
which he set,—which Paul had never done. For the cere-
monies of the law, although they ought not to be imposed on
the Gentiles, might yet be allowed to Jewish believers for a
time. Jerome, however, was unwilling to understand this;
and in his oratorical way, inveighs against Augustine as if
his opinion amounted to this™; “that even now, since the
gospel of Christ, the believing Jews do well if they keep the
precepts of the law; that is to say, if they offer sacrifices,
&c.” And against this opinion, which certainly never was
Augustine’s, he argues thus, as if fighting with his own.
shadow; “If this is true, we are falling into the heresy of
Cerinthus and Ebion, who, believing in Christ, were anathe-
matized by the fathers only for this, that they mixed the
ceremonies of the law with the gospel of Christ.” In these
words Jerome did not by any means intend to say that
Cerinthus and Ebion entertained no other heresy, on account
of which they were anathematized by the fathers, (for he
could not have been ignorant that Ebion had been condemned
by the ancients of heresy for denying the divinity of Christ,
τ [Heec igitur summa est questio- legis mandata custodiant, hoc est, sa-
nis] ut post evangelium Christi etiam crificia offerant, &c.”—Ibid.
nunc bene faciant Judzi credentes, si
a de
and the object of Jerome’s argument. 45
whilst. Cerinthus had been erased from the list of Christians
both for that heresy and for other impious doctrines,) but
that if they had been orthodox in all other respects, they
would have been judged worthy of anathema by the fathers
for that error alone. But because he saw that that position
might be called in question by the opponent whom he had
formed for himself, he quits of his own accord the instance
of Cerinthus and Ebion, and takes up another argument from
the Nazarenes, such as should cut off all handle for cavil;
“Why should I speak,” he says, “ of the Ebionites, who pre-
tend that they are Christians? To this very day there exists
through all the synagogues of the East, &c.” As if he said,—
as respects the Ebionites, you will possibly object, and I do
not deny, that they entertain impious notions concerning Christ
our Lord, inasmuch as they teach that He is only man; con-
sequently, they are no way to be accounted as really Christians,
however much they may pretend. to be Christians. But, at
any rate, with regard to the Nazarenes, you will have no
reply to make; for, although they are catholic in every
respect except that they retain the observance of the law, yet
they are held by the Church as heretics, That this was the
meaning of Jerome is most manifest. And no one could
have known the tenets of the Nazarenes better than Jerome,
for he had lived amongst them, and they had allowed him
an opportunity of copying the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew,
as he himself expressly states in his work on Ecclesiastical
Writers, in the section on Matthew.
14. To the testimonies which have been already produced
I will add two besides, which, although there is no express
mention of the Nazarenes in them, yet appear to me to
refer altogether to them, and to declare their opinion clearly
enough. .The former testimony shall be that of a writer
incontrovertibly much earlier than all those whom we have
as yet cited; I mean Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with
Trypho the Jew, wherein Trypho proposes to Justin for
solution certain questions about the observance of the law of
Moses. The first inquiry relates to those who lived under
the law before the coming of Christ, and is as follows;
“ Shall they who lived according to the requirement of the
law of Moses live in the resurrection of the dead, as well as
CHAP. IT.
§ 13, 14.
[60]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
OATHOLIC
CHUROH.
[61]
46 Statements of St. Justin Martyr, respecting the opinions
Enoch, Noah and Job, or not*?” To this question Justin
answers thus; “In the law of Moses, things which are by
nature excellent, and pious, and just, are appointed to be
performed by those who are thereunto subject; some things,
moreover, are likewise found written, which were commanded
to be done because of the people’s hardness of heart; these
were also observed by those who were under the law. Since
those who did such things as were universally, naturally, and
eternally right, have been well-pleasing unto God, they also,
equally with the righteous men who went before them,—
Enoch, and Noah, and Job*, and whoever else there were,—
shall in the resurrection obtain salvation by this Christ,
together with those who acknowledge this Christ to be the
Son of God, who was in being before the morning star and
the moon, and endured to be incarnate, and born through
this Virgin, who was of the lineage of David; that by this
dispensation the serpent, which wrought evil from the begin-
ning, and the angels who had been made like unto him,
might be utterly subdued, and death contemned, and at
length, at the second coming of Christ Himself, be altogether
put an end to, by those who believe in Him and live so as to
please Him, and be no more, when some shall be consigned
to the judgment and condemnation of fire, to be for ever
tormented, and others shall be associated together in a state
where shall be no suffering, or corruption, or pain, or death.”
The meaning of the answer is plainly this; that those who,
while living under the law of Moses, faithfully obeyed the
[κἀκεῖνος, εἰπὲ οὖν μοι, ἔφη" οἱ
τς κατὰ τὸν νόμον τὸν διαταχθεν-
ta διὰ Μωσέ ἕως, ζήσονται ἑμοίως τῷ
Ἰακὼβ καὶ τῷ Ἐνὼχ καὶ τῷ Nae, ἐν τῇ
τῶν νεκρῶν ἀναστάσει, ἢ οὔ; . ἐν τῷ
Μωσέως νόμῳ τὰ φύσει καλὰ da εὐσεβῆ
καὶ δίκαια νενομοθέτηται πράττειν τοὺς
πειθομένους αὐτοῖς καὶ πρὸς σκληροκαρ-
δίαν δὲ τοῦ λαοῦ διαταχθέντα γίνεσθαι
ὁμυίως ἀναγέγραπται, ἃ καὶ ἔπραττον οἱ
ὑπὸ τὸν νόμον. ἐπεὶ οἱ τὰ καθόλου καὶ
φύσει καὶ αἰώνια καλὰ ἐποίουν, εὔαρεστοί
εἶσι τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τούτου
ἐν τῇ ἁ ἀναστάσει ὁμοίως τοῖς προγενομένοις5
αὐτῶν δικαίοις, Νῶε καὶ Ἐνὼχ καὶ Ἶα-
κὼβ, καὶ εἴτινες ἄλλοι γεγόνασι,) σω-
θήσονται σὺν τοῖς ἐπιγνοῦσι τὸν Χριστὸν
τοῦτον τοῦ Θεοῦ υἱὸν, ὃς καὶ πρὸ ἕωσ-
Φόρου καὶ σελήνης ἦν, καὶ διὰ τῆς παρ-
θένου ταύτης τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ποῦ
Δαβὶδ; γεννηθῆναι σαρκοποιηθεὶς ὕ ὑπέμει-
νεν, [ἵνα διὰ τῆς οἰκονομίας ταύτης ὁ
πονηρευσάμενος τὴν ἀρχὴν ὄφις, καὶ οἱ
ἐξομοιωθέντες αὐτῷ ἄγγελοι καταλυ-
θῶσι, καὶ ὁ θάνατος καταφρονηθῇ, καὶ ἐν
τῇ δευτέρᾳ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίᾳ
ἀπὸ τῶν πιστευόντων αὐτῷ καὶ εὐαρέστως
ἕώντων παύσηται τέλεον, ἵ ὕστερον μηκέτ᾽
ὦν, ὅταν οἱ μὲν εἰς κρίσιν καὶ καταδίκην
τοῦ πυρὸς ἀπαύστως κολάζεσθαι πεμφθῶ-
σιν, οἱ δὲ ἐν ἀπαθείᾳ καὶ ἀφθαρσίᾳ καὶ
ἀλυπίᾳ καὶ ἀθανασίᾳ συνῶσιν.----Ρ. 263
and 264. [ὃ 45. pp. 140-41.]
‘ [Both here and in the passage
above, instead of Job (Ἰὼβ) (which
Bull read, following the older edi-
tions), the Benedictine Editor reads
Jacob (Ἰακώβδ[.----Β.1
.
i
aR) 8
of those who continued, as Christians, to observe the Law. 47
ceremonies which God had imposed on them, and, especially,
the eternal laws of justice, as well as the pious men who lived
before the law, should obtain by the grace of Christ eternal
salvation, together with us Christians, although they had not
that explicit faith respecting Christ which is now required of
ourselves; and that that explicit faith, which under the
gospel is required of us for salvation, is altogether that
whereby we acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the Son of God,
who existed before the world, and in the fulness of time was
incarnate, and was made man of the Virgin, that by that
dispensation He might overcome the devil and death, and
who shall at length come again in the end of the world,
to judge the earth, and to consign the wicked to the punish-
ment of eternal fire, and to exalt the righteous to a king-
dom of glory and everlasting happiness. Here let the reader
observe, in passing, the rule of faith concerning Christ which
Justin delivered as necessary to salvation, and let him keep
it in mind till a suitable time, when it may be of use. But
Trypho next asks, whether he who embraced at the pre-
sent time this faith of Christ, and yet along with that faith
retained also the observance of the ceremonial law of Moses,
could be saved? “ But if,” says he", “there be even now
any who desire to live in observance of the appointments of
Moses, and also believe in this the crucified Jesus, acknow-
ledging that He is the Christ of God,” (such as you, Justin,
just now described,) “ and that it has been given to Him to
judge all men absolutely, and that His kingdom is ever-
lasting,” (as you have also asserted,) “can they also be
saved?” Before he answers this question, Justin in his turn
puts a few inquiries to Trypho, respecting those Mosaic cere-
monies which could or could not be observed now since the
destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. After the solution
of these, Trypho repeats his question, and asks again *,
whether one, who holds the faith in Christ, described above,
and yet desires to observe such of the legal ceremonies
ἃ [ἐὰν δέ τινες καὶ νῦν ζῇν βούλωνται
φυλάσσοντςε“ τὰ διὰ Μωσέως διαταχθέντα,
καὶ πιστεύσωσιν ἐπὶ τοῦτον τὸν σταυρω-
θέντα Ἰησοῦν, ἐπιγνόντες ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν
ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ αὐτῷ δέδοται τὸ
κρῖναι πάντας ἁπλῶς, καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐστὶν ἣ
αἰώνιος βασιλεία, δύνανται καὶ αὐτοὶ σω-
θῆναι ; ἐπυνθάνετό wov.—Ibid. p. 141.]
x [καὶ ὁ Τρύφων πάλιν, ἐὰν δέ τις,
εἰδὼς ὅτι ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχει, μετὰ τοῦ
καὶ τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν ἐπίστασθαι
δηλονότι, καὶ πεπιστευκέναι καὶ πεί-
OHAP. II. .
§ 14.
[62]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHUROH.
1 > /
εκ TAYTOS.
[63]
23
48 Opinions of early Christians as to those who Judaized.
of Moses as may still be observed, can be saved? And at
last Justin answers in these words’; “As it seems to me,
Trypho, I say that such a man will be saved, if he do not
earnestly ' strive to persuade the rest of men,—those, I mean,
who from among the Gentiles have been circumcised from
their error through Christ,—to keep the same ceremonies
as himself, saying that they shall not be saved, unless they
keep them.” From the words used by Justin, “as it seems to
me,” Trypho raised a new question”; “Are there then any,”
he asks, “who say, that men of this kind will not be saved?”
No doubt it seemed to him a strange thing, that salvation
should be denied by any Christian to such as embraced
exactly the same creed with himself in all other respects,
on the simple ground that they make it a point of conscience
to observe a law which God had Himself enacted. But
Justin answers?; “There are, Trypho; and who also do not
venture to have part in society or in home with such: with
whom 1 do not agree.” For those persons, no doubt, thought
that after the gospel of Christ. had been so long and so
clearly promulgated, the Mosaic ceremonies were not only
dead, but deadly. An opinion which Justin does not alto-
gether deny, inasmuch as he concedes salvation not to
Judaizing Christians indiscriminately, but only to such as,
“through the infirmity of their judgment,” διὰ τὸ ἀσθενὲς
τῆς γνώμης, (as he afterwards says,) adhered to the rites of
Moses. From all this, however, it becomes at length very
clear, that there were some Jews in the time of Justin, who
combined with an observance of the ritual law of Moses the
Catholic faith respecting Christ, (that, namely, by which we
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who existed
before all created things, and at a predetermined time
was incarnate, and was made man of the Virgin for the
θεσθαι αὐτῷ, βούλεται καὶ ταῦτα φυλάσ-
σειν, σωθήσεται; ἐπυνθάνετο. ---- Ibid.
p- 142.1
Υ ὡς μὲν ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, ὦ Τρύφων, λέγω
ὅτι σωθήσεται ὁ τοιοῦτος, ἐὰν μὴ τοὺς
ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους, λέγω δὴ τοὺς amd
τῶν ἐθνῶν διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς
πλάνης περιτμηθέντας, ἐκ παντὸς πεί-
θειν ἀγωνίζηται ταὐτὰ αὐτῷ φυλάσσειν,
λέγων οὐ σωθήσεσθαι αὐτοὺς, ἐὰν μὴ
ταῦτα φυλάξωσιν.---ἰ [Ὁ14.] '
53 [κἀκεῖνος, διὰ τί οὖν εἶπας, ὡς μὲν
ἐμοὶ δυκεῖ, ἐσωθήσεται ὁ τοιοῦτος, εἰ μή
τι εἰσὶν of λέγοντες ὅτι οὐ σωθήσονται
οἱ τοιοῦτοι ;—Ibid. p. 143.]
® εἰσὶν, ὦ Τρύφων, kal μηδὲ κυινωνεῖν
ὁμιλίας ἢ ἑστίας τοῖς τοιούτοις τολμῶν-
tes οἷς ἐγὼ οὐ σύναινός εἰμι. [ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν
αὐτοὶ διὰ τὸ ἄσθενες τῆς γνώμης καὶ
τὰ ὅσα δύνανται νῦν ἐκ τῶν Μωσέως...
μετὰ τοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦτον τὸν Χριστὸν ἐλ-
πίζειν ... φυλάσσειν βούλωνται, k. τ. λ.}
The Nazarenes believed in our Lord’s Divinity. 49
salvation of mankind, &c.,) but yet did not impose the ne-
cessity of observing that law on other Christians, on those,
that is, who were of the Gentiles. Now who, I ask, were
these? Surely none other than the Nazarenes, or Christians
of Jerusalem, who, in the time of Justin, had not very long
been banished from their country by Adrian. And this was
written of the Nazarenes by Justin, who, after some further
observations in the same dialogue, incidentally touches on
the doctrine of the Ebionites also, as will be shewn after-
wards», when we come to the arguments of Episcopius.
15. My second testimony shall be taken from the sixth
book of the Apostolical Constitutions; in the 10th chapter
of which, the author enumerates the tenets of those here-
tics who disturbed the very Church of the Apostles; now
the Cerinthians and Ebionites are particularly touched on
at the end of the chapter, where he notes those who
taught, “that it is needful to be circumcised according to
the law; and to believe in Jesus, as a holy man and a
prophet*.” Then, in chapter 11, he sets forth the preaching
of the Apostles in opposition to all the heretics, whose wild
doctrines he had previously mentioned. And in that place
at the end of the chapter, he sets forth the Catholic faith in
opposition specially to Cerinthus and Ebion, in these words 4;
“We acknowledge the Christ not as a mere man, but as
God the Word and Man, the Mediatcr between God and men,
the High-priest of the Father; nor yet, with the Jews, do
we circumcise ourselves.” Then, in the chapter which imme-
diately follows, he goes on to speak against others, who were
of opinion that they ought to observe the Mosaic ritual. The
title of the chapter is °, “Against such as confess, but yet wish
to Judaize ;” ὁ, 6. against those, who while in other respects
they embraced the Catholic faith as it had been set forth in
the chapter just preceding, and specially confessed that part
of it, which was rehearsed at the conclusion of the chapter,
namely, that Christ is God and Man; yet thus far held with
6 This argument derived from @ τὸν Χριστὸν od ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον
Justin, the very learned author de-
fends in the forementioned treatise,
chap. i, § 9.—Grase.
© δεῖν. , . . περιτέμνεσθαι νομίμως"
πιστεύειν δὲ εἰς Ἰησοῦν ὡς εἰς ὅσιον
ἄνδρω καὶ προφήτην.--- Ὁ. 342.]
LULL,—J. 0. Ὁ,
ὁμολογοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ Θεὸν λόγον καὶ
ἄνθρωπον, μεσίτην Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων,
ἀρχιερέα τοῦ Πατρός οὔτε μὴν μετ᾽
᾿Ιουδαίων περιτεμνόμεθα.----ἰ p. 848.]
© πρὸς τοὺς ὁμολογοῦντας, ᾿Ιουδαΐζειν
δὲ θέλοντας.-- [Ibid.]
K
CHAP. If.
§ 14, 15.
[64]
[65]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
24:
[66]
50 Theodoret’s and Epiphanius’ statements about the
the Jews, and differed from the rest of the Christians, that
they adhered, even yet, to the ceremonial law of Moses.
Who, however, can doubt, that these “who confess, and
yet wish to Judaize,” were the very Nazarenes themselves?
For we have already heard Jerome attesting, almost in the
same words, of the Nazarenes, that they acknowledged that
Son of God in whom we also believe: but, while they wished
to be both Jews and Christians, they were neither Jews nor
Christians. We should, indeed, in vain seek for any others
than the Nazarenes, with whom that description of the
Pseudo-Clement’ would agree ¢,
16. The authority of Theodoret alone, a writer of a later
age, is insufficient to counterbalance these testimonies of
the ancients, so numerous and so weighty; he affirms 2,
that the Nazarenes “ honoured Christ merely as a righteous
? For as to Epiphanius, although, Heresy xxix. chap. 1",
he joins the Nazarenes with the Cerinthians as holding the
same opinions (ὁμοδόξους), yet, in chapter 7‘ of the same
Heresy, he candidly confesses, that he had not at all ascer-
tained what the Nazarenes thought concerning Christ ;
whether, that is, they followed the heresy of Cerinthus, or
the Catholic view. For in the same passage he thus writes
of them; “But concerning Christ I am unable to say,
whether they also hold Him to be a mere man, carried away
by the impious principles of those who have been already
mentioned, Cerinthus and Merinthus; or maintain, accord-
ing to the truth, that He was born of the Virgin Mary
through the Holy Ghost.” So that it is clear, that the
doctrines of the Nazarenes were but little understood by
Epiphanius. And what he had inconsiderately said before,
that the opinions of the Cerinthians and the Nazarenes were
f Read a defence of this statement οὔτε αὐτὸ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ἀλλὰ
B90, in the treatise [already referred
to], ὃ. 10.—Grasz.
& [Theodoret says only: Of δὲ Na-
ζωραῖοι ᾿Ιουδαϊοί εἰσι, τὸν Χριστὸν τι-
μῶντες ὡς ἄνθρωπον δίκαιον. |—Heeretic.
Fab. ii, 2. [vol. iv. p. 219.]
h (Vol. i. p. 116. Epiphanius, how-
ever, does not say that the Nazarenes
and the Cerinthians are “of the same "
opinions,” ὁμοδόξους. His words are:
σύγχρονοι ἦσαν ἀλλήλοις, καὶ ὅμοια
κέκτηνται τὰ φρονήματα. οὗτοι γὰρ
ἑαυτοῖς bvoun ἐπέθεντο οὐχὶ Χριστοῦ,
Ναζωραίων. “They were contemporary
and held similar sentiments, for these
did not call themselves from the name
of Christ, nor yet from the name of
Jesus, but Nazarenes.”—B. |
i περὶ Χριστοῦ δὲ οὐκ oda εἰπεῖν, εἰ
καὶ αὐτοὶ τῇ τῶν προειρημένων περὶ
Κήρινθον καὶ Μήρινθον μοχθηρίᾳ ἀἄχθέν-
τες ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον νομίζουσιν" ἥ, καθὼς
ἣ ἀλήθεια ἔχει, διὰ πνεύματος aylov
γεγεννῆσθαι ἐκ Μαρίας διαβεβαιοῦνται.
—[p. 198]
Nazarenes ; accounted for by the history of the sect. 51
similar, (ὅμοια ta φρονήματα,) Theodoret, who wrote after
him, evidently caught hold of, and from that stated, that the
Nazarenes, equally with the Cerimthians, honoured Christ
merely as a righteous man. Epiphanius, it is true, Heresy
xxx. 2, states, that the Nazarenes and the Ebionites had
laid their heads together, and communicated to each other
their wicked opinions. And it seems not improbable, that
the Nazarenes of after-times, when they had been long
rejected, and despised by almost all other Catholic Christians,
had formed a kind of familiarity with the Ebionites, owing
to their observing the Mosaic ritual in common; and that
some of them were thereby at last contaminated with their
heresy. And, probably, of the number of these degenerate
Ebionites, were they who were called the lesser Ebionites, of
whom no one, so far as I am aware, has made mention
before Origen. Be this as it may, the clear testimonies of
the ancients, which we just now adduced, place it beyond a
doubt that, long after the siege of the Jews in the reign of
Adrian, nay, up to the time of Jerome and Augustine at
least, there were Nazarenes who maintained unimpaired the
faith of the primitive Nazarenes, or of the primitive Christian
Church of the circumcision at Jerusalem; in other words,
believed that Christ was God at the same time that they
observed the law.
17. Now from all this it is at length abundantly clear, how
utterly vain is the labour, which the author of the Jrenicum
has bestowed in whitewashing the execrable heresy of the
Ebionites, and in putting it forward as the doctrine which the
Apostles themselves had delivered to the primitive Christians
of Jerusalem, or Nazarenes. It is unnecessary, therefore, to
contend much with that sophist, about the name of Ebion and
the origin of it. Inasmuch, however, as I observe that there
are some learned and orthodox men, who so far agree with
him, as to deny that there ever lived an heresiarch who bore
the name of Ebion ; and that the appellation, Ebionites, was
originally applied only by way of reproach to those Jewish
Christians, who held low and abject views concerning Christ;
we shall add a short statement on this question likewise.
CHAP, 11.᾿
§ 15—17.
[67]
That there was once a person’ of the name of Ebion, who so 1 homun-
far followed the heresy of Cerinthus, as to teach that the “°"™
E 2
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH,
[68]
1 λογισμοῦ.
25
52 Lbionites so called from the name of their founder ;
Lord Jesus was only a man, is expressly asserted by Tertul-
lian, who is almost the most ancient writer on heresies that
we now have, in a passage which we have already quoted in
this chapter. With Tertullian agree Philastrius, Jerome, in
the 8th chapter of his work Against the Luciferians, Epi-
phanius, Heresy xxx., and Ruffinus On the Creed, near the
end, with other authors. Nor is that an objection to this view,
which most writers have observed, that the word Ebion in
Hebrew, means poor or needy. For no other inference can
be drawn from that circumstance, than that the name of
Ebion and his opinion and notion respecting Christ agreed.
very well together; just as we read in Holy Scripture
about Nabal, 1 Sam. xxv. 25, “As his name is, so is he;
Nabal [7.e. fool] is his name, and folly is with him.”
Indeed, similar allusions to the names of heresiarchs fre-
quently occur in ecclesiastical writers. Thus, Eusebius, of
the Manichees, Eccl. Hist. vii. 31, says*; ‘At this time,
also, he who was maniac in mind, and named [Manes] from
his insane heresy, armed himself with the perversion of
reasoning '; the devil himself, even Satan the adversary of
God, having put the man forward for the ruin of many.” In
like manner, Gregory Nazianzen says of Arius, Oration xx.';
« Arius, who received his name from his madness, thoroughly
shook and destroyed a great part of the Church.” On this
passage of Nazianzen Nicetas observes; “ Arius was so
called ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄρεως, that is, from Ares [Mars], a most
warlike and furious demon.” Accordingly, the followers of
Arius were constantly designated ᾿Αριομανίται, Ariomanites,
by Athanasius and others. And I could produce many
instances of this kind, if it seemed worth while. But our
opinion is exactly expressed and confirmed by Epiphanius,
Heresy xxx. 17™, who writes thus about the name of Ebion ;
* For Ebion, when translated from the Hebrew into the
Greek tongue, means poor (πτωχός), for he was poor indeed,
both in his understanding, and in his hope, and in his work,
k ἐν τούτῳ καὶ ὁ μανεὶς τὰς φρένας,
ἐπώνυμός τε τῆς δαιμονιώσης αἱρέσεως,
τὴν τοῦ λογισμοῦ παρατροπὴν καθω-
πλίζετο᾽ τοῦ δαίμονος αὐτοῦ δήπου τοῦ
θεομάχου Σατανᾶ ἐπὶ λύμῃ πολλῶν τὸν
ἄνδρα προβεβλημένου.
᾿Αρεῖος,. .. ὁ τῆς μανίας ἐπώνυμος,
τὸ πολὺ τῆς ἐκκλησίας διέσεισε καὶ
διέφθειρεν.---[Οταῦ, ΧΙ], 80, p. 794.]
™ °EBiwyv γὰρ ἔχει ἀπὸ ἑβραϊιῆς εἰς
ἑλλάδα φωνὴν τὴν ἑρμηνείαν πτωχός"
πτωχὸς γὰρ ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ τῇ διανοίᾳ,
καὶ τῇ ἐλπίδι, καὶ τῷ ἔργῳ, Χριστὸν
ἄνθρωπον ψιλὸν νομίσας, καὶ οὕτως ἐν
Origen’s statement to the contrary considered. 53
holding Christ to be a mere man, and thus in poverty of omar. 11
faith had his hope in Him.” After a few words more, he $e
adds; “ But being so really by nature, he was called Ebion: [69]
the poor and miserable man having, I conceive, received that
name prophetically from his father and his mother.”
18. Accordingly, at first they only were called Ebionites,
who were followers of the heresiarch Ebion, and embraced
both his doctrines—as well that on the necessity of observ-
ing the Mosaic rites, as on the simple humanity of Christ.
But afterwards, i.e. about the middle of the third century,
as we are informed on the single authority of Origen, those
persons were by some called Ebionites, who from among the
Jews professed Christianity together with the observance of
the law. In his second book against Celsus, near the be-
ginning, he writes thus"; “Those whosoever from among
the Jews believe in Jesus, have not deserted the law of their
fathers: for they live according to it, and have been named
from the poverty of the law, according to their [literal]
acceptance of tt°;—/for a poor man is, by the Jews, called
Ebion ; and ‘those from among the Jews, who have em-
braced Jesus as Christ, are called Ebionites.”’ This, I repeat,
no one, so far as I am aware, has asserted either before
or after Origen. It may, however, not incorrectly be ob-
served from this very passage of Origen, that those who
were then called Ebionites in that wider sense, were yet not
so called from entertaining, with the earliest and proper
Ebionites, low and abject views concerning Christ; (for we
have fully proved, that not all the Jews who believed in
Jesus, and still observed the law, held such views concerning
Him ;) but “on account of the poverty of the law” (διὰ τὴν
πτωχείαν τοῦ νόμουὶ, to which they all adhered; in other words,
because they still valued highly and scrupulously observed,
what St. Paul calls, “the weak and beggarly elements” [of the
[70]
πτωχείᾳ πίστεως τὴν ἐλπίδα περὶ αὐτοῦ
κεκτημένος... ... ᾿Αλλὰ φύσει τῷ ὄντι
βίων ἐκαλεῖτο, κατὰ προφητείαν, οἶμαι,
ὁ πτωχὸς καὶ τάλας τὸ ὄνομα ἐκ πατρὸς
αὐτοῦ καὶ μητρὸς αὐτοῦ KexAnpwuévos.—
[Ρ. 141.]
" οἱ ἀπὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν
πιστεύοντες οὐ καταλελοίπασι τὸν πά-
τριον νόμον, βιοῦσι γὰρ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν,
ἐπώνυμοι τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἐκδοχὴν πτω-
χείας τοῦ νόμου γεγενημένοι. ᾿Ἐβίων τε
γὰρ 6 πτωχὸς παρὰ ᾿Ιουδαίοις καλεῖται"
καὶ Ἐβιωναῖοι χρηματίζουσιν οἱ ἀπὸ
Ιουδαίων τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, ὡς Χριστὸν, παρα-
δεξάμενοι.---ἰ ». 385.]
ο [κατὰ τὴν ἐκδοχήν. These words
are omitted in the-Latin version,
used and cited, as well as the Greek,
by Bp. Bull, and are not noticed in
his observations. ]
54 Origen also states that the Ebionites erred respecting Christ.
supvamext law |, (τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ oTovyeia'). In another passage,
converts. however, in his Commentary on Matthew ?, where Origen is
caurcH. speaking of the Ebionites, so called in the stricter sense,
1 Gal. iy. 9. those, that is, who did not acknowledge “the doctrine of the
divinity of Christ,” (τὴν περὶ Χριστοῦ θεολογίαν,) he says,
that they “were poor in their belief concerning Jesus,”
(πτωχεύοντας περὶ τὴν εἰς ᾿Ιησοῦν πίστιν) Thus have we
enlarged, somewhat fully indeed, as our subject required, on
the heretics, who, in the first age of Christianity, denied our
Lord’s divinity. Our account of those who maintained the
same heresy in the two following centuries, we shall, if it
please God, despatch with greater brevity and less trouble.
P Pp. 427, 428. edit. Huet. [tom. xvi. 12. vol. 111, p. 734.]
CHAPTER ITI. 26
ON THOSE WHO IN THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES DENIED THE TRUE
DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST.
1. In the reign of the Emperor Severus, about the year of
Christ 190, one Theodotus of Byzantium, surnamed from the
employment which he pursued, 6 σκυτεύς, “the Tanner,” had
the boldness openly to maintain and affirm the deadly doc-
trine of the Ebionites. By Caius the presbyter, or some other
ancient writer, cited by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. v. 28, this man
is called* “the chief and father of the God-denying apostasy,
who first asserted that Christ was a mere man.” He however
meant, as I suppose, that he was the first to assert that
doctrine amongst such as were simply Christians’, i.e. Chris- ὁ mere
tians of the Gentiles; since the earlier defenders of that Uke er
blasphemy for the most part maintained Judaism under the [71]
profession of Christianity, and therefore were to be ac-
counted members of the synagogue rather than of the
Church, and to be regarded more as Jews than Christians, or,
at all events, as something between the two. Accordingly,
by others also of the ancients, as we shall hereafter shew, the
Ebidénites were thrown into the catalogue of Jewish heresies,
‘and distinguished from the heretics who arose in the Christian
Church. But of this Theodotus and his heresy, Tertullian, in
his work De Prescript. adv. Heres. c. 53, speaks thus?; “ Be-
sides these, there was Theodotus of Byzantium, who after
he had been seized for the name of Christ, and had denied
Him, ceased not to blaspheme against Christ. For he intro-
duced a doctrine in which he asserted that Christ was merely
man, and denied Him to be God; that He was born indeed
5 τὸν ἀρχηγὸν καὶ πατέρα τῆς dpynoi- comprehensus negavit, in Christum
θέου ἀποστασίας, πρῶτον εἰπόντα ψιλὸν blasphemare non destitit. Doctrinam
ἄνθρωπον τὸν Χριστόν. enim introduxit, qua Christum homi-
Ὁ Accedit his Theodotus Byzantius, nem tantummodo diceret, Deum an-
qui posteaquam Christi pro nomine tem illum negaret; ex Spiritu quidem
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
1 ἐνουθέ-
TNO
[72]
2 φρονήσει,
3 ἀφροσύνῃ.
4 μάρτυρα,
ὕ6 The deniers of our Lord’s Divinity excommunicated ;
of a Virgin by the Holy Ghost, but yet a mere and bare man,
possessing no prerogative beyond other men, but simply that
of righteousness.” The same is said of him by Epiphanius,
Heresy liv., by Augustine, On Heresies, c. 33, and by nearly
every other writer on heresies. A sentence of anathema,
however, was issued against this impious teacher by Victor,
Bishop of Rome, according to the testimony of the before-
mentioned Caius, as given by Eusebius in the passage which
we just now referred to.
2. In that place the same Caius also narrates a remarkable
story, which, as it is very apposite to my subject, I will not
hesitate to relate here®; “I will recall,” he says, “to the
memory of many of our brethren an event which has hap-
pened in our own time; which, if it had occurred in Sodom,
might haply, I think, have led even them to repentance’.
There was a certain man, Natalis by name, a confessor, who
lived, not in old time, but in our own days. He was at
one time led astray by Asclepiodotus, and a certain other
person, Theodotus, a banker. Both these were disciples of
Theodotus the tanner, who was the first that was removed
from the communion of the Church for this sentiment’, or
rather senselessness*, by Victor, as I said, the then Bishop.
Natalis was prevailed on by them to be elected bishop of
this heresy, in consideration of a salary, so that he was to
receive of them a hundred and fifty denarii a month. Having
then joined himself with them, he was often in dreams admo-
nished by the Lord. For our merciful God and Lord Jesus
Christ was not willing that he who had been a witness* to His
own sufferings should be put out of the pale of the Church and
Sancto natum ex Virgine, sed homi-
nem solitarium atque nudum, nulla
alia pree ceteris, nisi sola justitiz
auctoritate.—pag. 223. [But see note 8,
page 25.—B. ]
¢ [The Greek of this extract is not
given by Bp. Bull; it has, however,
been followed in the translation, and
is cited here :---πομνήσω γοῦν πολλοὺς
τῶν ἀδελφῶν πρᾶγμα ep ἡμῶν γενόμε-
vov’ ὃ νομίζω ὅτι εἰ ἐν Σξοδόμοις ἐγεγόνει,
τυχὺν ἂν κἀκείνους ἐνουθέτησε, Νατάλιος
ἣν τὶς ὁμολογητὴς οὐ πάλαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ
τῶν ἡμετέρων γενόμενος καιρῶν' οὗτος
ἠπατήθη ποτὲ ὑπὸ ᾿Ασκληπιοδότου καὶ
ἑτέρου Θεοδότου τινὸς τραπεζίτον᾽ ἦσαν
δὲ οὗτοι ἄμφω Θεοδότου τοῦ σκυτέως μα-
θηταὶ, τοῦ πρώτου ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ φρονήσει,
μᾶλλον δὲ ἀφροσύνῃ, ἀφορισθέντος τῆς
κοινωνίας ὑπὸ Βίκτορος ὡς ἔφην τοῦ τότε
ἐπισκόπου" ἀνεπείσθη δὲ ὁ Νατάλιος ὕπ᾽
αὐτῶν ἐπὶ σαλαρίῳ ἐπίσκοπος κληρωθῆναι
ταύτης τῆς αἱρέσεως, ὥστε λαμβάνειν
παρ᾽ αὐτῶν μηνιαῖα δηνάρια ἑκατὸν πεν-
τήκοντα. γενόμενος οὖν σὺν αὐτοῖς, δι᾽
ὁραμάτων πολλάκις ἐνουθετεῖτο ὑπὸ τοῦ
Κυρίου. ὁ γὰρ εὔσπλαγχνος Θεὸς καὶ Κύ-
ριος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς, ovK ἐβούλετο
ἔξῳ ἐκκλησίας γενόμενον, ἀπολέσθαι μάρ-
τυρα τῶν ἰδίων παθῶν. ἐπεὶ δὲ ῥαθυμότε-
ρον τοῖς ὁράμασι προσεῖχε, δελεαζόμενος
τῇ τε παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς πρωτοκαθεδρίᾳ, καὶ τῇ
the history of Natalis in evidence of this, 57
perish. But when Natalis was slow to give heed to the dreams,
being beguiled by the chief place [which he held] among
them, by that which destroys so very many, filthy lucre, he
was at last scourged by holy angels, being grievously buffeted!
through the whole night, so that in the morning he arose,
and having put on sackcloth, and besprinkled himself with
ashes, he with much earnestness and many tears fell down
before Zephyrinus, the bishop, prostrating himself under the
feet, not only of the clergy, but of the laity also; and by his
lamentations distressed’? the compassionate Church of the
merciful Christ: and after using much entreaty, and shew-
ing the weals of the stripes which he had received, he was
with difficulty received back to communion.” So great, it
seems, was the difficulty for a man, though in other respects
he had done good service to Christianity, to be reconciled
to the Church, after he had at any time fallen into that
dreadful heresy. With respect, however, to the repeated
visions in which the Lord Jesus himself is here said to have
appeared, as the avenger of His own divine majesty, and to
have chastised the madness of the fallen confessor, no man
will easily reject them as fictions, who observes that it is the
confessor himself who relates them, when solemnly doing
penance in the church for his shameful fall, before many wit-
nesses, to the greater part of whom, being still alive, the very
trustworthy writer of this narrative made his appeal; and
who moreover recollects that in writers of even the third
century, of the most approved credit, there are found not a
few other examples of the same kind of visions. On this
point the reader may consult the Dissertations on Cyprian,
by the very learned Dodwell, Diss. iv. on Epist. viii.
3. Not long after the beginning of the third century, there
arose a reviver of the heresy of Theodotus, one Artemon or
Artemas; against whom and his followers Caius, or the
ancient writer whom we have just quoted, wrote a learned
πλείστους ἀπολλυούσῃ αἰσχροκερδείᾳ,
τελευταῖον ὑπὸ ἁγίων ἀγγέλων ἐμαστι-
γώθη, 8° ὅλης τῆς νυκτὸς οὐ σμικρῶς
αἰκισθείς" ὥστε ἕωθεν ἀναστῆναι, καὶ
ἐνδυσάμενον σάκκον, καὶ σποδὸν κατα-
πασάμενον, μετὰ πολλῆς σπουδῆς καὶ δα-
κρύων προσπεσεῖν Ζεφυρίνῳ τῷ ἐπισκό-
πῳ, κυλιόμενον ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας οὐ μόνον
τῶν ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν λαϊκῶν"
συγχέαι τε τοῖς δάκρυσι τὴν εὔσπλαγ-
χνον ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ ἐλεήμονος Χριστοῦ"
πολλῇ τε τῇ δεήσει χρησάμενον, δείξαντά
τε τοὺς μώλωπας ὧν εἰλήφει πληγῶν,
μόλις κοινωνηθῆναι.----Αν. Euseb. E. H.
v. 28.]
CHAP. III,
gS,
1 αἰκισθείς.
2 συγχέαι.
27
[73]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
1 robs
προτέρους.
2 παρακεχα-
ράχθαι.
3 πιθανόν.
4 θεολογεῖ-
ται ὁ
Χριστός.
[74]
5 θεολο-
γοῦντε.
all of which the divinity of Christ is taught‘.
58 The arguments brought against the Artemonites shew that
treatise, as Eusebius states in the forementioned passage,
Keel. Hist. v., in the last chapter. In this treatise, as
Eusebius states, the author writes thus, word for word, of
the Artemonites‘; ‘“ They affirm that all who lived before
us’, and the Apostles themselves, both received and taught
what they now assert; and that the truth of this preach-
ing was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the
thirteenth ‘bishop at Rome after Peter; but that from the time
of his successor, Zephyrinus, the truth had been corrupted’.
And perhaps this statement of theirs might have been
plausible’, were it not that in the first place the Holy Scrip-
tures are opposed to them; and there are also writings of
certain brethren, prior to the times of Victor, which they
composed in defence of the truth both against the heathen
and against the heretics of that day: I mean, Justin, and
Miltiades, and Tatian, and Clement, and several others, in
For who is
ignorant of the writings of Irenzeus, and Melito, and others,
which declare that Christ is God and man? Such psalms
also and hymns of the brethren®, as were written from the
beginning by the faithful, celebrate Christ the Word of
God, ascribing to Him divinity *. How, then, since the
mind of the Church has been declared for so many years, is
it possible that up to the time of Victor they should have
publicly taught as these allege?
4 φασὶ yap τοὺς μὲν προτέρους ἅπαν-
τας καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἀποστόλους παρειλη-
φέναι τε καὶ δεδιδαχέναι ταῦτα, ἃ νῦν
οὗτοι λέγουσι: καὶ τετηρῆσθαι τὴν ἀλή-
θειαν τοῦ κηρύγματος μεχρὶ τῶν Βίκτορος
χρόνων, ὃς ἣν τρισκαιδέκατος ἀπὸ Πέτρου
ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐπίσκοπος" ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ διαδόχου
αὐτοῦ Ζεφυρίνου, παρακεχαράχθαι τὴν
ἀλήθειαν. ἣν δ᾽ ἂν τυχὸν πιθανὸν τὸ
λεγόμενον, εἰ μὴ πρῶτον μὲν ἀντέπιπτον
αὐτοῖς αἱ θεῖαι γραφαί: καὶ ἀδελφῶν δέ
τινων ἐστὶ γράμματα πρεσβύτερα τῶν
Βίκτορος χρόνων, ἃ ἐκεῖνοι πρὸς τὰ ἔθνη
ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ πρὸς τὰς τότε
αἱρέσεις ἔγραψαν λέγω δὲ Ἰουστίνου καὶ
Μιλτιάδου καὶ Τατιανοῦ καὶ Κλήμεντος
καὶ ἑτέρων πλειόνων, ἐν οἷς ἅπασι θεολο-
γεῖται ὃ Χριστός. τὰ γὰρ Εἰρηναίου τε
καὶ Μελίτωνος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν τίς ἀγνοεῖ
βιβλία, Θεὸν. καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγέλ-
λοντα τὸν Χριστόν; ψαλμοὶ δὲ ὅσοι καὶ
δαὶ ἀδελφῶν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ πιστῶν
How are they not ashamed
γραφεῖσαι, τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν
Χριστὸν ὑμνοῦσι θεολογοῦντες ; πῶς οὖν
ἐκ τοσούτων ἐτῶν καταγγελλομένου τοῦ
ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ φρονήματος, ἐνδέχεται
τοὺς μεχρὶ Βίκτορος οὕτως ὡς οὗτοι λέ-
γουσι κεκηρυχέναι; πῶς δὲ οὐκ αἰδοῦνται
ταῦτα Βίκτορος καταψεύδεσθαι ; ἀκριβῶς
εἰδότες, ὅτι Βίκτωρ τὸν σκυτέα Θεύδοτον
τὸν ἄρχηγον καὶ πατέρα ταύτης Ths ἀρ-
νησιθέου ἀποστασίας, ἀπεκήρυξε τῆς κοι-
νωνίας, πρῶτον εἰπόντα ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον
τὸν Χριστόν. εἰ γὰρ Βίκτωρ κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς
οὕτως ἐφρόνει ὡς ἢ τούτων διδάσκει
βλασφημία, πῶς ἂν ἀπέβαλλε Θεόδοτον
τὸν τῆς αἱρέσεως ταύτης εὑρετήν ;---
Euseb. E. H. v. 28 ]
© See Pliny’s Epistle, x. 97, to the
Emperor Trajan, and my own re-
marks on this passage of Caius in
my Defence of the Nicene Creed, iii.
5. [p. 408. ]
the Divinity of our Lord was always taught. Case of Beryllus. 59
to make these false assertions about’ Victor, well knowing, as cmap. m1.
they do, that it was Victor who excommunicated Theodotus ὃ ὃ ἢ
the tanner, the chief author and father of this God-denying ' vet
heresy, who first asserted that Christ was a mere man? as
For if Victor entertained, as they say, sentiments such as
their blasphemy teaches, how could he have cast out [from
the pale of the Church] Theodotus, the discoverer of this
heresy?” ‘This remarkable fragment of the learned author
I have the more willingly transcribed entire from Eusebius,
that all persons may see the extreme shamelessness of the
author of the Lrenicum, when he appeals to the Artemonites,
as the most trustworthy witnesses of the Apostolic tradition.
For from this statement it is clear that they were themselves
convicted of a most manifest falsehood, which had not the
slightest semblance of truth. And what is more, I venture
to say that this one paragraph of the venerable author, duly
weighed, is sufficient to refute all the impious figments which
are accumulated in the Jrenicum. But what is most of all to
our purpose is the fact, that these Artemonites were expelled
from the congregation of the faithful, and had nothing in
common with the Catholic Church of Christ; as is evident
from the words of the fathers of Antioch about Paul of Samo-
sata, just then excommunicated ; they say in their Synodical
Epistle‘; “Let him despatch a letter to Artemas, and let
such as think with Artemas communicate with him.”
4, Not long afterwards, in the same century, Beryllus,
Bishop of Bostra.in Arabia, (as Eusebius relates, Eccl. Hist.
vi. 338,) “perverting the rule of the Church, endeavoured to
introduce certain novelties, alien to the faith; being so bold .
as to affirm that our Saviour and Lord did not previously
subsist in personality proper to Himself’, before His sojourn-? κατ᾽ ἰδίαν
ing among men,—nay, nor even had any divinity of His own, eds ἢ
but only that of the Father residing within® Him.” From ὅ ἐμπολι-
this statement of Eusebius one may conjecture that Beryllus
[75]
28
TEVOMEV NY.
‘had been approaching to the
f τῷ δὲ ᾿Αρτεμᾷ οὗτος ἐπιστελλέτω,
καὶ of τὰ ᾿Αρτεμᾶ φρονοῦντες τούτῳ κοι-
vwvelrwoay.—In Euseb. Eccl. Hist. vii.
30, near the end, [p.363.]
8. τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν παρεκτρέπων
κανόνα, ξένα τινὰ τῆς πίστεως παρεισφέ-
heresy of Noetus, which was
pew ἐπειρᾶτο' τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ κύριον
ἡμῶν λέγειν τολμῶν μὴ προῦφεστάναι
κατ᾽ ἰδίαν οὐσίας περιγραφὴν πρὸ τῆς εἰς
ἀνθρώπους ἐπιδημίας, μηδὲ μὴν θεότητα
ἰδίαν ἔχειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐμπολιτευομένην αὐτῷ
μόνην τὴν πατρικήν.
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[76]
60 Paul of Samosata. Evidence that his
afterwards that of Sabellius. Yet Jerome, whose words I shall
presently quote, mentions nothing of this kind of him®. But,
at all events, many bishops met in synod against him, no
doubt with the intention of removing him from communion
as a man convicted of heresy. Being, however, convinced of
his error by Origen, who was present at the synod, he was
subdued, and yielded to the truth, and returned to his former
sound opinion, as Eusebius attests in the same passage. Je-
rome’s statement respecting him, in his work on Ecclesiastical
Writers, c. 71}, is to this effect ; “" Beryllus, bishop of Bostra
in Arabia, after ruling his Church for some time with great
reputation, fell at last into the heresy which denies Christ’s
existence before His incarnation; was refuted by Origen;
wrote several short works, and particularly epistles, wherein
he expresses his gratitude to Origen, &c.”
5. About the year of Christ 260, the notorious Paul, de-
signated Samosatenus, from Samosata, the place of his birth,
and Antiochenus, from his episcopal see, resuscitated the
heresy of the Artemonites. For (according to Eusebius, Eccl.
Hist. vii. 27*) he entertained opinions “ concerning Christ,
which were low and grovelling, contrary to the doctrine of
the Church, as if He were in His nature only an ordinary
man,” Athanasius, however, writes of him as follows in his
treatise on the coming of the Saviour!; ‘“‘ The Samosatene con-
fesses God [born] of the Virgin; God seen out of Nazareth ;
who also had from that point the beginning of His existence,
and received the beginning of His kingdom; and he con-
fesses in Him the energising Word from heaven, and Wis-
dom ; that He existed, indeed, by foreappointment’* before
the worlds; but in actual existence was manifested out of
h [The heresy described by Eusebius
was the denial of the real personal
existence of the Son before His incar-
nation, as Jerome describes it. |
i Beryllus Arabize Bostrenus episco-
pus, cum aliquanto tempore gloriose
rexisset ecclesiam, ad extremum lap-
sus in heresin, que Christum ante
incarnationem negat, ab Origene cor-
rectus, scripsit varia opuscula, et max-
ime Epistolas, in quibus Origeni
gratias agit, &c.—([c. 60, p. 885. ]
k [τούτου δὲ] ταπεινὰ καὶ χαμαιπετῆ
περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρὰ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστί-
Knv διδασκαλίαν, ὡς κοινοῦ τὴν φύσιν
ἀνθρώπου γενομένου.
1 [Παῦλος] ὁ Σαμοσατεὺς Θεὸν ἐκ
τῆς παρθένου ὁμολογεῖ, Θεὸν ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ
ὀφθέντα, καὶ ἐντεῦθεν τῆς ὑπάρξεως τὴν
ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκότα, καὶ ἀρχὴν βασιλείας
παρειληφότα" λόγον δὲ ἐνεργὸν ἐξ οὐρα-
νοῦ καὶ σοφίαν ἐν αὐτῷ ὁμολογεῖ, τῷ
μὲν προορισμῷ πρὸ αἰώνων ὄντα, τῇ δὲ
ὑπάρξει ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ ἀναδειχθέντα. ----
Page 635. ed. Paris. 1627. [contra
Apollin, ii. 3. vol. i. p. 942. ]
heresy was the denial of our Lord’s Divinity. 61
Nazareth.” Here, by the Word which was in Christ, Paul
by no means understood the person of the Word, or Son of
God; for no such Word as this did he acknowledge, but
only a kind of divine power and energy, by which He was
conceived in the Virgin’s womb, and which afterwards con-
stantly operated in Him. It was only in this way that he
thought that Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, (since
he did not acknowledge any Holy Ghost as a divine Person,)
and on this account he believed that He was called God in
the Scriptures. Touching the same Paul and his followers,
Augustine, On Heresies, c. 44™, says; “ The Paulians, after
Paul of Samosata, say that Christ did not always exist; on
the contrary, they affirm that His beginning was from the
-time of His birth of Mary: and they do not believe Him to
be anything more than man. This heresy was broached
aforetime by one Artemon; but, after having come to an
end, it was renewed by Paul.” Let us, however, hear the
testimony of the fathers of the Council of Antioch them-
selves, who certainly best understood Paul’s doctrine. In
their Synodical Epistle, given by Eusebius in the 30th chapter
of the afore-cited book, they testify that Paul had denied
“his God and Lord” (τὸν Θεὸν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ Κύριον) ; that
is, he had disowned the divinity of our Lord and Saviour
Christ. Again, shortly afterwards in the same Epistle they
declare that he refused “to confess with [Catholics] that
the Son of God had come down from heaven ” (τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ
Θεοῦ συνομολογεῖν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ κατεληλυθέναι) ; but said that
Christ was “from beneath” (κάτωθεν). Lastly, in the same
document, they expressly speak of him as one “who had
betrayed the mystery [of the faith], and been initiated into
the execrable heresy of Artemas” (τὸν ἐξορχησάμενον τὸ
μυστήριον, καὶ ἐμπομπεύοντα τῇ μιαρᾷ αἱρέσει τῇ ᾿Αρτεμᾷ).
Paul therefore entertained of Christ the same opinions as
Artemas.
6. But some ancient writers inform us, that the Samosa-’
tene defended this Jewish blasphemy, in order to gratify
Zenobia, who at that time was empress in the East, and who
™ Patliani, ἃ Paulo Samosateno, amplius quam hominem putant. Ista
Christum non semper fuisse dicunt, heresis aliquando cujusdam Artemo-
sed ejus initium, ex quo de Maria nisfuit; sed cum defecisset, instaurata
natus est, asseverant: neceum aliquid est a Paulo.—[vol. viii. p. 13.]
CHAP. III.
§ 4—6.
[77]
[78]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
OHUROCH.
29
62 The examination and condemnation of Paul ;
was either a Jewess, as Athanasius affirms”, or at least much
inclined to the religion of the Jews. This is the statement
of Chrysostom, Homily viii. on John, and of Theodoret, Her.
Fab. ii. 8. Even as some modern reproducers, both of the
Samosatene and of the Arian sects among ourselves, insist
on the complete suppression in the Church of the doctrine
of Christ, as the coessential Son of God, and consequently of
the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, that it may not
any longer, forsooth, prove an obstacle to the conversion of
the Jews and the Turks; that is to say, they wish us to cease
from being Christians in reality, in order that those infidels
may become Christians anyhow. |
7. Against this impious Paul, however, two synods of
bishops were convened at Antioch. In the former indeed,
which was held about the twelfth year of the reign of the
emperor Gallienus, A.D. 265, the sophist escaped with impu-
nity, having by his dissimulation deceived the bishops, as
we gather from Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. vii. 28. In the latter
synod, however, which was very numerously attended, and
was held in the reign of Aurelian, about the year of our
Lord 270, his heresy was laid open before all by Malchion, a
presbyter and a man of very great learning, who was present
αὖ the synod, whereupon he was not only deposed from his
[79]
episcopal throne, but also entirely prohibited from all com-
munion with the Catholic Church. Of this synod Eusebius
has transmitted to us the following brief account, in chap, 29
of the book before mentioned°®; “In this emperor’s time,
(Aurelian’s,) a synod consisting of a very great number of
bishops was assembled; and in it, Paul, the leader of this
heresy at Antioch, having been detected and now clearly
condemned by all of false doctrine, was excommunicated out
of the whole Church under heaven, τῆς ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν
καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀποκηρύττεται. And when he was
seeking to escape being brought to account, he was con-
victed mainly by Malchion, a man of great learning, &c.”
® In Epist. ad Solit. p.837.[§ 71. ᾿Αντιοχείαν αἱρέσεως ἀρχηγὸς, τῆς ὑπὸ
vol. i. p. 386.] τὸν οὐρανὸν καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀποκη-
ο [καθ᾿ ὃ ὃν (τελευταία5) συγκροτηθείσης ρύττεται. μάλιστα δὲ αὐτὸν εὐθύνας
πλείστων ὅσων ἐπισκόπων συνόδου, φω- ἐπικρυπτόμενον διήλεγξε Μαλχίων, ἀνὴρ
ραθεὶς καὶ πρὸς ἁπάντων ἤδη σαφῶς τάτε ἄλλα λύγιος, x. τ. A.—Huseb; Εἰ, 1
καταγνωσθεὶς ἑτεροδυξίαν ὁ τῆς κατὰ Vii. 29.]
the terms in which his heresy is described. 63
Now it is worthy of observation, with what emphasis and
severity the holy fathers, in their Synodical Epistle, in-
veigh both against the heresiarch himself and his heresy.
They call him, “the man who denies his God” (τὸν Θεὸν
τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἀρνούμενον) ; “an apostate from the rule [of
faith] (ἀποστάντα τοῦ κανόνος); and also, “one who sets
himself in array against God” (ἀντιτασσόμενον τῷ Θεῷ).
While they designate his doctrine, “the deadly doctrine”
(τὴν θανατηφόρον διδασκαλίαν) ; “a God-denying evil”
(ἀρνησίθεον κακίαν) ; “a polluted heresy” (μιαρὰν αἵρεσιν).
From which it is manifest, that this great and sacred
synod, and so the Catholic Church of that period, were
altogether of opinion, that the doctrine of the true divinity
of Christ was necessary to be known and believed in order
to salvation.
8. After Paul of Samosata, no one, so far as 1 remember,
occurs in the ecclesiastical history of the third century, as
opposing the doctrine of our Saviour’s divinity, except a man
named Lucian, who also, on this account, suffered the sentence
of excommunication. Of him the reader may see what I have
written in my work, the Defence of the Nicene Creed, ii. 13. 8.
[pp. 349—352. ]
9. But if some of the modern Arian party here object,
that all the heretics, whom we have hitherto enumerated,
denied the preexistence of Christ before [ His birth of ] Mary;
whereas the Arians not only acknowledge this doctrine, but
even allow that He existed before the worlds, it will follow
that all these objections, however much they may affect the
Socinians, have no relation whatever to the Arians—his
objection is futile. For it is most plain, that the above-
mentioned heretics were condemned by the Church, on a
ground which was held by them in common with the Arians,
namely, the denial that our Saviour is God. Let the reader
look back at what we have observed in this chapter from
ancient sources respecting Theodotus, Artemon, and Paul
of Samosata, and he will see, that the heresy of all of them
was regarded by the holy fathers as consisting in this—
not that they considered Christ to be a creature lower than
He really was, but that they absolutely laid down that He
OHAP., III.
§ 6—9.
[80]
64 Arianism condemned by implication in these cases.
JupGMENT was a mere created being, and did not acknowledge Him
OF TH
replies το as very God. In a word, they ‘were convicted and con-
cuuRcH. demned “ for the God-denying heresy ” (τῆς ἀρνησιθέου
1 κυρίας
δόξας.
[81]
αἱρέσεως), as we have heard Caius say concerning Theodotus
and Artemon, and the fathers of Antioch respecting Paul of
Samosata. But surely the heresy of Arius was not less
“ God-denying” than theirs; nor was there so great a dif-
ference between their opinion and that of Arius, as that
the Church should judge the one to be tolerated, the other
to be worthy of anathema. For by both Christ was deter-
mined to be a mere created being; the difference between
the two parties being only as to the time when He began >
to exist.
10. Nevertheless, I must here repeat an observation which
I have made elsewhere, that even the special opinions’ which
Arius held, I mean, about the Word having been produced
from some definite beginning indeed, although before the
worlds, and the difference of His essence from the nature —
of the supreme God, had been previously condemned by
the Church in the case of those very early heretics, the
Gnostics. See, by all means, what we have advanced on
this subject in our Defence of the Nicene Creed, ii. 1. 15.
[p. 83.] and iii. 1. 15, 16. [p. 897, &c.] also, 10. 16. [p. 539.]
Moreover, we must recall to mind the well-known history of
Dionysius of Alexandria, who was falsely accused by the
Sabellians before Dionysius of Rome, of the very same doc-
trines as those which Arius afterwards maintained ; Dionysius
of Rome, without delay, assembled a synod to consider the
case; in it the doctrines were rejected by all as heretical ;
and Dionysius himself also, who was said to have maintained
them, would without doubt have been condemned, if he
had not in due time cleared himself by a letter from a most
foul calumny. This history you may find fully laid open
by us, in the Defence of the Nicene Creed, 11. 11. 2, &e,
[pp. 304, &c.]
Now from the lengthy discussions, which we have made in
this and the chapter immediately preceding, it is as I sup-
pose most evident to all, that the opinion, which denies that
our Saviour is very God, was always held in the Catholic
The conclusion of the direct evidence. 65
Church of the first three centuries to be a most deadly heresy,
nay, a detestable blasphemy ; and that those who maintained
it were utterly rejected as impious teachers, and altogether
aliens from the true and saving faith of Christ; so that one
may naturally wonder by what colouring or sophistry (for it
is impossible for him to produce anything of solid argument
against testimony so plain) Episcopius can maintain his
assertion to the contrary. We will now proceed, however,
to a more accurat2 examination of his allegations, such as
they are.
BULL.—J. 0. Ο. ¥
OHAP, III.
§ 9, 10.
90 CHAPTER IV.
ON THE CREEDS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH: AND FIRST, OF THE FIRST AND MOST
ANCIENT CREED, AND THE EXPOSITIONS OF IT, WHICH ARE FOUND IN IRENZUS
AND TERTULLIAN.
gopement 1, IN order to prove his premiss,—that in the primitive
cammone Churches, which continued from the very times of the
cuurcH. Apostles during at least-three whole centuries, the belief and
profession of that special Sonship of Jesus Christ, z.e. that by
which He is determined to be the Son of God before all worlds
and God of God, was not judged necessary for salvation,
—LEpiscopius advances two arguments in all, the former of
which is as follows*; “This,” he says, “is proved first of
all by the creeds of the Churches, by which, as by notes
and passwords, Christians were formerly distinguished from
infidels, and as many as professed to believe them were
[82] inscribed and enrolled in the public list and register of
Christians. For in these the belief and profession of this
peculiar mode [of Sonship] is at no time and in no place
found to have been either required or made. The most
ancient creed, and that which was ordinarily used in the
earliest administration of baptism from the very times of the
Apostles, ran thus; ‘I believe in God the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost ;’ according, 2.6. to the form which had
been. prescribed by Jesus Himself, ‘Go ye and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son,
1 ἐξηγή. and the Holy Ghost.’ The statements’ of this creed, which
ei occur in various forms in ancient authors, for instance in
Trenseus, i. 2 and 3, in Tertullian’s treatises On Prescrip-
tion against Heresies, and On the Veiling of Virgins, &c.,
none of them contain the profession of this mode [of Sonship],
much less declare the necessity of professing it. And yet
Treneeus says of the creed which he gives, that it is so complete
that theological learning could add nothing to it, nor want of
« [Page 340. ]
Episcopius’ argument from the Creeds ; refuted. 67
learning take from it. © Tertullian also says of his, ‘To know
nothing beyond it, is to know everything,’ ἕο. (Nihil ultra
scire, omnia scire est, &c.) The Apostles’ Creed itself, as it
is called, though it is not clear at what time it was composed,
was, I have not the least doubt, gradually and successively
enlarged by the addition now of one and now of another
article, as various heresies gave occasion. Yet, like the pre-
ceding creeds, it was so carefully composed, that some, the
Papists for instance, suppose (though incorrectly) that it was
compiled by the Apostles themselves, each article having
been expressed by an Apostle, and then the entire creed
having been put together by one, with approbation [of all]:
but be this as it may, it has been regarded by all Christian
Churches,—though not perhaps in precisely the full form
in which we now read it, in the first three centuries, yet,
at any rate, from the fourth century down to the present
day,—as the undoubted, perfect, and Catholic rule of the
Christian faith; this creed, I repeat, makes no mention at
all of this peculiar mode of Sonship, but is content with this
short form; ‘I believe in Jesus Christ, His only-begotten
Son, our Lord.’ ”
2. I answer, Ist, That an argumént of this sort can be
here of no avail. For since it has been abundantly proved
from the testimonies adduced above, which are clearer than
light, that the belief and profession of this particular mode
of the Sonship of Jesus Christ was judged by the primitive
Churches to be necessary to salvation, who will trust a man
who endeavours to prove the opposite from this fact,—that
the creeds which they used do not contain that belief and
profession with sufficient explicitness? For my own part,
I should suppose that the directly opposite conclusion’ ought
to be drawn; namely, that inasmuch as from other sources it
is clear enough, that the belief and profession of this mode
[of Christ’s Sonship] was judged by the primitive Churches
to be absolutely necessary to salvation, it must, therefore,
be by all means concluded, that the said mode is contained
with sufficient explicitness in the creeds, or confessions of
faith, which those Churches used; or, at any rate, was sup-
posed by themselves to be contained [in them] with suffi-
cient. explicitness. And, indeed, it is well known, that the
F 2
[83]
68 Divinity of Christ held to be part of the Rule of Faith ;
sovement Catholic doctors who lived long before the Nicene Creed
1 omnino
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHUROH.
31
pertinere
ad.
[84]
angulo.
was framed, were of opinion, that the doctrine respecting the
true divinity of the Son was contained in the rule of faith ;
in other words, in the creeds which were received in the
Church in their own age. For Ireneus and Tertullian ex-
pressly affirm, as we shall hereafter shew, that that doctrine
unquestionably formed a part* of the rule of faith. Caius,
also, as cited by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. v. last chapter, says of
the Artemonites, who denied that Christ was God, that
“they set aside the rule of the ancient faith” (πίστεως
ἀρχαίας κανόνα ἠθετήκασι). The Fathers of Antioch like-
wise, in their Synodical Epistle, as given in Eusebius’ Eccles.
Hist. vii. 80, called Paul of Samosata, as we have already
observed, “ one who had departed from the rule [of faith] ”
(ἀποστάντα τοῦ κανόνος). This argument, therefore, of Epi-
scopius, if it proves anything, only proves that the primitive
Churches did not express with sufficient clearness in their
creeds, that article, which [yet] they judged to be necessary.
But, 2dly, there is no reason why any one should bring this
charge against them. That this may be made clear, we will
run through the creeds mentioned by Episcopius, following
him step by step. ,
8. “The most ancient [creed],” says he, “and that which
was ordinarily used from the very times of the Apostles in
the first administration of baptism, was this; “1 believe in
God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.’” I answer,
1. That this was never regarded as a full and perfect creed,
such as comprehended all the necessary articles of the faith
in express words; (that man indeed is not in his proper
senses, who supposes that the whole of the Christian faith is
shut up in so narrow a space’ ;) but only as a very brief and
compendious confession of the primary article of the most
Holy Trinity, to be made by the person about to be baptized,
who had previously been taught the meaning of it more fully
and plainly by his catechiser. 2. But yet in this creed,
such as it is, the true divinity of the Son (as also that of the
‘Holy Ghost) is at any rate so explicitly stated, that it is
hardly possible to have it expressed more clearly in so small
a compass of words. For, Ist, it is evident, that in the form,
“1 believe in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,”
expressed even in the simplest form of the Creed. 69
the word “‘ God” is referred to all Three, viz. the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost, in common’. Which is still more
plainly expressed in the Greek, Πιστεύω εἰς τὸν Θεὸ» τὸν
Πατέρα, τὸν Tidv, καὶ τὸ Ayvov Πνεῦμα. It was in this sense,
certainly, that the ancients understood this brief confes-
sion. Hence, Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chap. 13°, while
setting forth the common faith of Christians respecting the
Father, ‘the Son, and the Holy Ghost, says; “The Father
is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God,
and each is God.” Cyprian, in like manner, in a letter to
Jubaianus*’, argues thus against the baptism of heretics ;
“If any one could have been baptized among heretics, it
follows that he might also have obtained remission of sins ;
if he has obtained remission of sins, he has also been
sanctified, and made the temple of God. But I ask, Of what
God? [If you say,] Of the Creator; he could not [be so];
for he has not believed in Him. If, Of Christ; neither
could he have been made His temple, who denies that Christ
is God. If, Of the Holy Ghost; seeing that the Three are
One, how can the Holy Ghost be at peace with him, who is
an enemy either of the Son or of the Father?” Here he
manifestly alludes to the form of confession respecting the
most Holy Trinity, which used to be required of persons about
to be baptized, that, I mean, wherein they professed that they
believed in the Father as God, in the Son as God, and in the
Holy Ghost as God, and that these Three are One God. The
attentive reader will also observe by the way, that St. Cy-
prian, in this passage, teaches most explicitly, that the article
respecting the true divinity of Christ our Lord is absolutely
necessary to be believed in order to salvation. For he says
expressly, ‘He cannot become a temple of God,” (which
surely is the same thing as if he had said, he cannot be
saved,) “ who denies that Christ is God.’ But to return to
my subject. To myself it certainly appears, that in these
> Et Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, et
Spiritus 8. Deus, et Deus unusquis-
que.—[p. 507.]
© Si baptizari quis apud heereticos
potuit, utique et remissam peccato-
rum consequi potuit; si peccatoram
remissam consecutus est, et sanctifica-
tus est, et templum Dei factus est.
Queero, Cujus Dei? si Creatoris; non
potuit, quia in eum non credidit: Si
Christi ; nec hujus fieri potuit tem-
plum, qui negat Deum Christum: Si
Spiritus Sancti ; cum-tres unum sint,
quomodo Spiritus S. placatus esse ei
potest, qui aut Filii aut Patris inimi-
cus est —[p. 133.]
CHAP. IV:
§ 2, 3.
1 ἀπὸ
κοινοῦ.
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHUROH.
[86]
1 compe-
tentes.
32
70 In Baptism, the allegiance pledged to the Father, the Son,
few words, “I oelieve in God, the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost,” the great truth, that the Son and the Holy
Ghost are one God with the Father, is, up to a certain pomt,
more clearly expressed than in some fuller creeds which
were made subsequently. For, owing to the additional clauses
after the words, “I believe in God the Father,” as well as
what is added after the mention of the Son, without the
word God being repeated in the articles on the Son’and the
Holy Ghost, it might have been thought, and by some per-
sons actually has been thought, that the appellation God
belonged only to the Father; altogether contrary to the
mind and view of those, who framed those longer creeds.
4, 2dly, In this form, the Son (as also the Holy Ghost)
is joined to the Father, as sharing in supreme power, and
partaking in that faith, honour, worship, and obedience,
which the person to be baptized professes, vows, and pro-
mises: now if any one thinks that this is suited to a mere
man or any creature whatsoever, it must indeed be said,
that he is altogether ignorant of what is meant by the
dreadful charge of idolatry. That this may appear in a clearer
light, it should be especially observed, that in the primitive
Church two things were required of the candidates’, im-
mediately before their baptism; a renunciation of Satan
(amrotayn or ὠπόταξις τοῦ Σατανᾶ,) and an engagement of
themselves to Christ (συνταγὴ or σύνταξις πρὸς τὸν Xpe-
στόν.) The renunciation was made in these (or similar)
words ; “I renounce Satan, his works, his worship, &c.”
After the renunciation immediately followed the engagement,
in these words; “I believe in God, the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost“. Now inasmuch as the formula both
of renunciation and engagement was received in all the
Churches of Christ in the first centuries, it cannot be
doubted that it came from the Apostles themselves. As,
however, those who came to baptism did, by this renun-
ciation, entirely renounce the worship of the devil, and so of
idols, and of all false gods; so by the engagement did they
wholly bind themselves to the worship of the One true God,
namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This,
4 See the Apostolical Constitutions, vii. 41, and Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catech.
Myst. i.
and the Holy Spirit, implies the Divinity of each Person. 71
indeed, is gathered not obscurely from the Dialogue, entitled
Philopatris, written by Lucian, or some other, who, at any
rate, was a contemporary, and of similar mind to him. In
this work the writer, who was coeval with the first successors
of the Apostles, and, though a heathen, well acquainted
with Christian affairs, introduces in ridicule one Triephon,
who acts the part of a Christian teacher and catechist, and
communicates to a catechumen, among other things, the
mystery of the most Holy Trinity. For on the catechumen
inquiring ; “ By whom then shall I swear to you?” Triephon
answers®; “ By the God, who reigns on high, great, im-
mortal, celestial, the Son of the Father, the Spirit who pro-
ceeds from the Father, One of* Three, and Three of’? One:
believe these to be Jove, and esteem Him God.” From this
testimony, I repeat, we may gather, that those who in that
age came from heathenism to the Church of Christ, were
absolutely bound to this,—to relinquish Jupiter and the
other vain names and deities, which they had worshipped in
their paganism, and thenceforward to devote and consecrate
themselves entirely to the belief, worship, and obedience of
the Triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
as their one and only God. This remarkable passage the
reader may find more fully explained, and abundantly vindi-
CHAP. IY.
§ 3—5.
[87]
ὙΠ
>
2 ἐξ,
cated from the cavils of Sandius, in my Defence of the -
Nicene Creed, ii. 4. 11. [pp. 156—160.} Let this then
suffice respecting the first and, what Episcopius designates,
“the most ancient” of the creeds. ;
5. Let us proceed to the statements * ofthe Creed, which
are found in Irenzeus and Tertullian. ‘“ None of them,” says
Episcopius, “ contains a profession of this mode [of Sonship] ;”
that is, in none of these expositions is anything contained,
which declares our Saviour to be the Son of God in any other
mode than such as is consistent with His being a mere man,
not having any existence before [His birth of] Mary. This
statement, however, I assert, is so palpably untrue, that I am
utterly at a loss to conceive with what judgment, good
faith, or conscience, the learned writer could so confidently
© ὑψιμέδοντα Θεὸν, μέγαν, ἄμβροτον, ρευόμενον, ἕν éx τριῶν, καὶ ἐξ ἑνὸς τρία.
οὐρανίωνα, ταῦτα νόμιζε Ζῆνα, τὸν δὲ ἡγοῦ Θεόν.---
υἱὸν Πατρὸς, πνεῦμα ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκπο- [Υ0]. iii. p. 596, ed. Hemsterhus.]
. ἐξηγήσεις.
[88]
72 The Creed as drawn out in St. Ireneus, involves the
JUDGMENT
OF THE —
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
affirm it. I will begin with Ireneus. In chap. 1 of his
first book £, he cursorily mentions “the canon,” or “rule of
the truth,” (τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀχηθείας,) which in his time every
Christian “received by his baptism,” (διὰ tod βαπτίσματος
εἴληφε.) This rule of faith he afterwards in various passages
and various ways, though always in the same sense, states
and sets forth. And a man is blinder than a mole, if he fails
to see that in these expositions the divine Sonship of our
Saviour is declared, in all indeed explicitly enough, but in
some with the utmost explicitness. In chap. 2 of his first
book, he states the rule of faith in the following words ;
«For the Church, though scattered through the whole world,
even to the ends of the earth, yet having received from the
Apostles and their disciples the belief in one God, the Father
Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas,
and all things that are therein; and in one Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, who was incarnate for our salvation; and in the
Holy Ghost, who through the prophets proclaimed * the dis-
pensations, and the advents *4, and the birth of a virgin, and
the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the
receiving into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord,
in the flesh, and His coming from heaven in the glory of
8. avaxepa- the Father, in order to sum up all things*, and to raise up’
λαιώσασθαι. 1) the flesh of all mankind, that to Christ Jesus our Lord
and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the good
pleasure of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of
things in heaven and things in earth and things under the
earth, and every tongue confess to Him, and that He may
[89]
1 κεκερυ-
χός.
2 ἐλεύσεις.
£ [ὁ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκλινῆ
ἐν ἑαυτῷ κατέχων, ὃν διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσμα-
τος εἴληφε... .] Page 40. edit. Feuar-
dent. [c. 9, 4. p. 46.]
6 ἢ μὲν γὰρ ἐκκλησία, καίπερ καθ᾽
σιν, καὶ τὸ πάθος, καὶ τὴν ἔγερσιν ἐκ
νεκρῶν, καὶ τὴν ἔνσαρκον εἰς τοὺς ovpa-
νοὺς ἀνάληψιν τοῦ ἠγαπημένου Χριστοῦ
Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, καὶ τὴν ex τῶν
οὐρανῶν ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ Πατρὸς παρου-
ὅλης τῆς dikoumévns ἕως περάτων τῆς
γῆΞ διεσπαρμένη, παρὰ δὲ τῶν ἀποστό-
λων καὶ τῶν ἐκείνων μαθητῶν παραλα-
βοῦσα τὴν eis ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα παντο-
κράτορα, τὸν πεποιηκότα τὸν οὐρανὸν,
καὶ τὴν γῆν, καὶ τὰς θαλάσσας, καὶ
πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς, πίστιν" καὶ εἰς ἕνα
Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν
σαρκωθέντα ὑπὲρ τῆς ἡμετέρας σωτηρίας"
καὶ εἰς πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τὸ διὰ τῶν προ-
φητῶν κεκηρυχὸς τὰς οἰκονομίας, καὶ
τὰς ἐλεύσεις, καὶ τὴν ἐϊς παρθένου γέννη-
σίαν αὐτοῦ, ἐπὶ τὸ ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι
τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἀναστῆσαι πᾶσαν σάρκα
πάσης ἀνθρωπότητος, ἵνα Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, καὶ Θεῷ, καὶ σωτῆρι,
καὶ βασιλεῖ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ
Πατρὸς τοῦ ἀοράτου, πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ
ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθο-
νίων, καὶ πᾶσα γλώσσα ἐξομολογήσηται
αὐτῷ, καὶ κρίσιν δικαίαν ἐν τοῖς πᾶσι
ποιήσηται.----ἰ 6. 10. p. 48.]
h For adventum in the Latin, Grabe
would read adventus.
Incarnation of the Son of God ; his meaning in these words. 73
execute upon’ all a righteous judgment.”’ In this exposition cmap. rv.
of the ancient creed, the Catholic Church dispersed throughout ὃ δ"
. the world is said to believe in Christ, as “the Son of God, * ἐν.
who was incarnate for our salvation,” (τὸν ἐνσαρκωθέντα ὑπὲρ
τῆς ἡμετέρας σωτήριας,) which are almost the very words of
the Creed of Constantinople, and, as we shall shew hereafter,
were contained in the most ancient creed of the Eastern
Church, which was more full. In these words, all, who are
willing to see, will find it clearly intimated, that our Saviour,
before He became man, existed and was the Son of God in
a nature without flesh, and also that He took flesh or human
nature, out of His good-will to the race of man, that is, in
order that He might procure eternal salvation for us men’.
But what sort of incarnation of the Son of God was believed
in by Irenzeus, who has given us this exposition of the creed,
no one can doubt, who has been ever so slightly acquainted
with his writings. If any proof be needed, let the quotation
of a single passage out of many suffice as a comment from
book 111. chap. 20* ; where in making a kind of recapitulation
of what he had been previously discussing, he writes thus ;
** Since it has been manifestly shewn, that He who was in
the beginning the Word existing with God, through whom all
things were made, who also was ever present with the human
race, did in the last times, according to the time predeter-
mined by the Father, become united to His own creature,
being made man capable of suffering, all gainsaying is pre-
cluded of those who say, ‘If then Christ was at that time
born, He had therefore no existence before.’ For we have
shewn, that the Son of God, who was always in being
with the Father, did not then begin to be; but that when
He was ‘incarnate,’ and was made man, He summed up ἡ in ? recapitu-
Himself the long series of mankind, affording salvation for *”*
33
[90]
16 Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, ὃ Κύριος, 6 σώ-
σας ἡμᾶς, ὧν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα,
ἐγένετο σάρξ. “ Jesus Christ, the Lord
who aver: us, was at the first Spirit,
and becameF lesh.”—-Clement of Rome,
Ep. ii. [ὃ 9. p. 188. This Epistle,
however, is rejected by most critics
as spurious.—B. ]
k Ostenso manifeste, quod in prin-
cipio Verbum existens apud Deum,
per quem omnia facta sunt, qui et
semper aderat generi humano, hunc
in novissimis temporibus secundum
preefinitum tempus a Patre, unitum
suo plasmati, passibilem hominem
factum, exclusa est omnis contradictio
dicentium, Si ergo tunc natus est, non
erat ergo ante Christus. Ostendimus
enim, quia non tune ccepit Filius Dei,
existens semper apud Patrem, sed
quando incarnatus est, et homo factus,
longam hominum expositionem in
seipso recapitulavit, in compendio
nobis salutem preestans ; ut quod per-
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
1 replas-
mare.
2 bravium.
[91]
3 aptavit.
74 Further expositions of the Creed in St. Ireneus ; illustrated
us all at. once; so that what we had lost in Adam, that is,
the being after the image and likeness of God, this we might
recover in Christ Jesus. For as it was not possible, that man,
who had been once conquered and ruined by his disobedience,
should re-create himself’ and obtain the reward ’? of victory ;.
and again, [as] it was impossible, that he who had fallen under
sin should gain salvation ; both were effected by the Son, who
is the Word of God, who came down from the Father, and was
incarnate, and humbled Himself even unto death, and per-
fected the dispensation of our salvation.”” From this appears
clearer than the light of noonday what Irenzeus means by
“believing in the Son of God, who was incarnate for our
salvation.” Moreover, in this exposition of the creed, of
which we are now speaking, our Saviour is not only called
“the Son of God,” but “ God,” in express terms; a name,
which, in the judgment of Ireneus, ought not to be attributed
absolutely [%.e. without expressed qualification] to any one,
and in fact is not so attributed in the Holy Scriptures,
especially those of the New Testament, to any one except
to Him, who is really God. See particularly Irenzus,
book 11]. 6. |
6. But in other passages also Irenzus states and sets forth
the rule of faith; for instance, in book i. chap. 19', where the
pre-existence of the Son, not merely before [His birth of]
Mary, but also before all creatures,—and the creation of all
things by Him, and that as by the Word, nowise external to
God His Father, (as are all created beings, even the angels
themselves,) but most intimate and co-essential with Him, is
most clearly expressed. Here are his own words, reader, judge
for yourself; “But since we hold ‘the rule of truth, i.e.
that there is one God Almighty, who created and ordered *
all things through His Word, and out of that, which was -
not, made all things to exist, as the Scripture saith, ‘ For
dideramus in Adam, id est, secundum
imaginem et similitudinem esse Dei, .
hoc in Christo Jesu reciperemus. Quia
enim non erat possibile, eum homi-
nem, qui semel victus fuerat et elisus
per inobedientiam, replasmare, et ob-
tinere bravium victoriz ; iterum autem
impossibile erat, ut salutem perciperet
qui sub peccato ceciderat; utraque
operatus est Filius, Verbum Dei ex-
istens, a Patre descendens, et incar-
natus, et usque ad mortem descendens,
et dispensationem consummans salutis
nostree.—[¢c. 18. p. 209.]
1 Cum teneamus autem nos regu-
lam veritatis, i.e. quia sit unus Deus
omnipotens, qui omnia condidit per
Verbum suum, et aptavit, et fecit ex
eo quod non erat, ad hoc ut sint om-
nia, quemadmodum Scriptura dicit,
out of other places of his work ; as shewing the same truth. 75
by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the omap. rv. °
‘host of them by the breath [Spirit] of His mouth?; and ὃ 5
again, ‘ All things were made by Him, and without Him was whit 6]
nothing made’.? Now from all things there is nothing Ὁ f ohn i.
excepted; but through Him did the Father make all things, * |
whether visible or invisible; whether objects of sense or
objects of the understanding; whether things temporal for
some dispensation *, or things everlasting and eternal *,—[by * propter
Him, ] not by angels, nor by any powers cut off from His mind ; disvest.
for the God of all stands in need of nothing; but through ΤΣ
His Word and Spirit making, and disposing, and governing, j
and giving being to all things, &c.... Holding then this
rule, though their statements are very various and many, we
prove without difficulty that they have deviated from the
truth.” The reader should by all means consult those
passages of Irenzeus akin to this, which we have adduced in
the Defence of the Nicene Creed, ii. 5. 7. [pp. 172, &e.]
7. To these may, if you please, be further added a third
exposition of the primitive creed, given by Ireneeus, iii. 4,
where, wishing to shew that the tradition of the truth is to
be sought not in the conventicles of heretics, but in the
Catholic Church, he writes thus™; “ But what if the Apostles
even had not left the Scriptures to us, would it not have
been our duty to follow the order of the tradition, which they
delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches?
To this appointment many nations of those barbarians, who be-
lieve in Christ, give their assent; having salvation written in
their hearts by the Spirit without paper and ink, and care-
fully guarding the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the
[92]
Verbo enim Domini celi firmati sunt,
et Spiritu oris ejus omnis virtus eorum;
et iterum, Omnia per ipsum facta
sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil : ex
omnibus autem nihil subtractum est,
sed omnia per ipsum fecit Pater, sive
visibilia, sive invisibilia, sive sensi-
bilia, sive intelligibilia, sive tempora-
lia propter quandam dispositionem,
sive sempiterna et sonia, non per an-
gelos, neque per virtutes aliquas ab-
scissas ab ejus sententia ; nihil enim
indiget omnium Deus; sed per Ver-
bum et Spiritum suum omnia faciens,
et disponens, et gubernans, et omnibus
esse preestans, &c. Hanc ergo tenentes
regulam, licet valde varia et multa
dicant, facile eos deviasse a veritate
arguimus.—[c. 22. p. 98.]
m Quid autem si neque apostoli
quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis,
nonne oportebat ordinem sequi tradi-
tionis, quam tradiderunt iis quibus
committebant ecclesias? Cui ordina-
tioni assentiunt multz gentes barba-
rorum eorum qui in Christum credunt,
sine charta et atramento scriptam
habentes per Spiritum in cordibus suis
salutem, et veterem traditionem dili-
genter custodientes, in unum Deum
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 figmen-
tum.
34:
2 sine
literis,
[93]
76 LIreneus’ statement of the Rule of Faith includes this article.
Maker of heaven and earth, and all things which are therein,
through Jesus Christ, the Son of God; who out of His most
eminent love to His own creation’ endured the birth of the
Virgin, Himself by Himself uniting man to God; and suffered
under Pontius Pilate, and rose again, and was received back
in splendour, and will come in glory as the Saviour of those
that are saved, and the Judge of those that are judged, send-
ing into everlasting fire those who transform the truth and
despise His Father and His coming. They that have believed
this faith without writing’, are in respect of our language
barbarians ; but with respect to opinion, and practice, and
conversation, they are, by reason of their faith, the very
wisest [of men], and please God, living in all righteousness,
chastity and wisdom. If to these persons one shall report
the inventions of the heretics, speaking with them in. their
own tongue, they will at once shut their ears and flee far and
far away, not enduring even to hear the blasphemous dis-
course.” In this rule of faith, Christ is said to be that Son
of God, through whom the heaven and the earth and the sea,
and all that is therein, were created and made, who out of
supreme love and compassion to the work of His own hands,—
that is, to the human race,—was content to be born [as]
man of the Virgin, and so united man with God. This tradi-
tion of the faith Irenzus affirms to be so universal and so
ancient, that even the barbarous nations themselves, who had
not as yet the Holy Scriptures translated into their mother-
tongue, retained it, having received it at first from the
Apostles, that is, or their disciples, together with the gospel
itself, of which indeed it is the principal part; and was
credentes Fabricatorem cceli et terre
et omnium que in eis sunt, per Chris-
tum Jesum Dei Filium; qui propter
eminentissimam érga figmentum suum
dilectionem, eam que esset ex Virgine
generationem sustinuit, ipse per se
hominem adunans Deo, et passus sub
Pontio Pilato, et resurgens, et in clari-
tate receptus, in gloria venturus Sal-
vator eorum qui salvantur, et Judex
eorum qui judicantur, et mittens in
ignem zternum transfiguratores veri-
tatis, et contemptores Patris sui et
adventus ejus. Hane fidem qui sine
literis crediderunt, quantum ad ser-
monem nostrum barbari sunt; quan-
tum autem ad sententiam, et consue-
tudinem, et conversationem, propter
fidem perquam sapientissimi sunt, et
placent Deo, conversantes in omni
Justitia et castitate et sapientia. Qui-
bus si aliquis annuntiaverit ea que ab
heereticis adinventa sunt, proprio ser-
mone eorum colloquens, statim con-
cludentes aures longo longius fugient,
ne audire quidem sustinentes blas-
phemum colloquium.—[p. 178.]
The Rule of Faith, as stated by Tertullian. 77
moreover regarded by all Catholic Christians of those times
as so sacred, that even those very barbarians themselves
abominated any doctrine which was repugnant to it as an
impious heresy, and even as blasphemy.
8. Let us now examine the statements of Tertullian. In
his treatise On the Veiling of Virgins, not far from the
beginning, the rule of faith is rather referred to incidentally,
than recited, by Tertullian, and so of course is stated in a
mutilated and mcomplete form. For Christ is there called
not even “ our Lord,” nor “the only-begotten Son of God,”
but simply “the Son of God ;᾽ yet this was of itself sufficient
for Tertullian to have said incidentally concerning Christ,
since he in common with all the ancient Catholics uniformly
understood the appellation “Son of God” to be applied to
Christ in the higher sense. But in that rule there is no
mention made of Christ’s conception, as man, by the Holy
Ghost, nor indeed of the Holy Ghost Himself. But still I do
not deny that I am inclined to think, that Tertullian in this
passage has specially in view the Creed which was in use, in
his time, in the African Church, which was almost the same as
the Roman Creed ; since the Roman Church “had the same
CHAP. IV.°
§ 7—9.
password '” of faith with the African Churches, to use Ter- 1 contes-
tullian’s own phrase, in his work On the Prescription against "*
Heresies, c. 36. But the Roman Creed, although fuller than
Tertullian’s incidental statement in this place, yet was more
brief than the creeds of the Eastern Churches, as in other
articles, so in this of the Son of God, for reasons which we
shall notice presently. But meanwhile, the belief of the
Roman and of the Eastern Churches was always the same:
they all confessed the article touching the Son of God in the
same fulness of meaning, though not of words. Nor indeed
was Tertullian ignorant of this.
9. Hence, in the second passage which Episcopius refers
to, I mean in his work On the Prescription against Heresies,
chap. 13, where he also states the rule of faith, he exhibits
the article on the Son of God in a more full and explicit
form, describing in terms clearer than the sun the existence
of the Son, not only before | His birth of] the blessed Virgin,
but also before all ages; and further, the creation of all
[94]
JUDGMENT:
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH,
[95]
78 The Rule of Faith, as stated by Tertullian, explicitly
things by Him. For after saying, that that alone should be
matter of controversy which may be brought into question
without infringing the rule of faith, he immediately subjoins
that rule in this manner"; “ But, that we may at once profess
what. we maintain, the rule of faith [of which we speak] is
that by which we believe that there is one only God, and no
other than the Creator of the universe, who produced all
things out of nothing by His Word, which was sent down first
of all: that Word, called His Son, appeared in various ways,
under the name of God, to the patriarchs, and was always
heard in the prophets; lastly, came down by the Spirit and
power of God the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made
flesh in her womb, was born of her, and lived [as] Jesus
Christ, &c.”” After finishing the creed, he adds these words ;
“This rule, which, as will be proved, was established by
Christ, admits of no questionings among us, except such as
heresies introduce, and which make heretics.” What could
have been said more effectual and express against the asser-
tion of Episcopius than this? You have, however, this same
rule of faith again set down by Tertullian, in his Treatise
against Praxeas, chap. 2°; “ We believe,” he says, “ that
‘there is indeed one only God; but under this dispensation,
which we call economy, that to the one only God there is also
a Son, [who 15] His Word, who came forth from Him, by
whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was
made; that He was sent by the Father into the Virgin, and
of her was born, man and God, the Son of man and Son of
God, and was called Jesus Christ, &c.” After which he
adds; ‘“‘ That this rule has come down from the beginning of
™ Regula est autem fidei, ut jam
hine quid defendamus profiteamur,
illa 5611, qua creditur, unum omnino
Deum esse, nec alium preter mundi
Conditorem, qui universa de nihilo
produxerit per Verbum suum primo
omnium demissum; id Verbum Fi-
lium ejus appellatum, in nomine Dei
varie visum a patriarchis, in prophetis
semper auditum ; postremo delatum
ex Spiritu Patris Dei et virtute in
Virginem Mariam, carnem factum in
‘utero ejus, et ex ea natum egisse
-Jesum Christum, &c. .
«+» Hee re-
gula, a Christo, ut probabitur, insti-
tuta, nullas habet apud nos que-
stiones, nisi quas heereses inferunt, et
que heereticos faciunt.—[p. 206, ]
° Nos unicum quidem Deum eredi-
mus, sub hac tamen dispensatione,
quam οἰκονομίαν dicimus, ut unici Dei
sit et Filius Sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso
processerit, per quem omnia facta
sunt, et sine quo factum est nihil.
Hune missum a Patre in Virginem,
et ex ea natum hominem et Deum,
Filium hominis et Filium Dei, et cog-
nominatum Jesum Christum, &e.:. .
includes the article of the Divinity of the Word, or Son. 79
the Gospel, even before all earlier heretics, much more before omar. rv.
Praxeas, who is but of yesterday, as will be proved as well by _°* _
the late rise’ of all heretics, as by the novelty of Praxeas, who ties
is of yesterday.” From this surely it is at length abundantly
evident, how rash or how shameless is the appeal of Epi-
scopius to those expositions of the ancient creed which are
found in Irenzeus and Tertullian.
. . Hane regulam ab initio evan- posteritas omnium hereticorum, quam
gelii decucurrisse, etiam ante priores ipsa novellitas Praxez hesterni.—[P.
-quosque heereticos, nedum ante Prax- 501.]
eam hesternum, probabit tam ipsa,
35
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH,
[96]
CHAPTER V.
OF THAT WHICH IS CALLED THE APOSTLES’ CREED.
1. I coME now to that which is called the Apostles’ Creed ;
of which Episcopius says; “The so-called Apostles’ Creed
itself makes no mention at all of this peculiar mode of Son-
ship, but is content with this short form; ‘I believe in Jesus
Christ, His only-begotten Son, our Lord.’” This is Episco-
pius’s principal argument; and since his time it has been
vehemently urged by the author of the Jrenicum and by
Sandius; and it has been constantly put forward by recent
writers among ourselves, who have revived, some the Arian,
some the Socinian follies, in their little works, equally
impious and spiritless; who moreover, by screening and
defending themselves with this as their shield, think them-
selves perfectly safe from the charge of heresy, which has
been most justly fastened upon them by Catholics. __
2. That I may therefore meet this argument, m which
these vain men so greatly confide and glory, with accumu-
lated replies, I propose to demonstrate the four following
propositions; 1. That what is called the Apostles’ Creed,
though it is conformable to the doctrine of the Apostles, was
by no means dictated or composed by the Apostles them-
selves, in so many words, and in the same form and method,
in which we now see it at this day; but in fact is nothing
else than the creed of the Church of Rome, which did not
receive its completion in that Church until after the year of
Christ 400; the Eastern Churches in the meanwhile using
another creed. 2. That the Church of Rome was able for-
merly to use, and further did use, a more succinct and
shorter creed than what was required in the Churches of
the East, because the latter were harassed by heretics of
almost every kind; whilst’ in the Church of Rome there
arose no heresy which taught that its shorter confession of
Why the Roman (i.e. the Apostles’) Creed is so brief. 81
faith ought to be understood in any other way than according
to the right intention (κατ᾽ ὀρθὴν ἔννοιαν), and the genuine
meaning of the Church. 3. That, notwithstanding, a pro-
fession of this special mode of the Sonship of Jesus Christ
is really contained in the Roman Creed, in the words, “ And
I believe in Jesus Christ, His” (i.e. God the Father’s) ‘ only-
begotten Son.” 4. Lastly, in the creed, or rule of faith, which _
was in use before the Council of Nice, in the most ancient
Churches of the East, that special mode of the Sonship of
Jesus Christ was delivered and declared in express terms.
3. The first proposition has been abundantly proved by
that eminent man, John Gerhard Vossius, throughout the
first of his three dissertations On the Three Creeds. To that
dissertation (that I may not go over the ground again) I refer
the reader.
- The second proposition is proved by the testimony of
Ruffinus, who has this preface before his Exposition of the
Creed*; ‘ Before 1 begin to discourse on the excellences
of the words, I think it not out of place to remark, that in
different Churches some additions to the words of the creed
are found. In the Church of the city of Rome, however,
we do not find that this has been done; the reason of which,
I conceive, is this, that no heresy has ever had its origin
there; and that in that Church the ancient custom is kept
up, that such as are about to receive the grace of baptism
should repeat the creed in public, that is, in the hearing of
the congregation of the faithful; and, as is plain, the cir-
cumstance that persons who are already believers are present
and hearing, does not admit the addition of even one word.
But in all other places, so far as I can understand, on
account of some heretics, certain words appear to have been
added, by which, as was believed, the sense given to the words
Ὁ Priusquam incipiam de ipsis ser-
monum virtutibus disputare, illud non
importune commonendum puto, quod
in diversis ecclesiis aliqua in his verbis
inveniuntur adjecta. In ecclesia ta-
men urbis Rome hoe non deprehendi-
tur factum ; quod ego propterea esse
arbitror, quod neque heresis ulla illic
sumpsit exordium ; et mos ibi serva-
tur antiquus, eos, qui gratiam bap-
tismi suscepturi sunt, publice, id est,
BULL.— J, ©. 6,
fidelium populo audiente, symbolum
reddere; et utique adjectionem unius
salem sermonis, eorum qui preecesse-
runt in fide non admittit auditus. In
ceteris autem locis, quantum intelligi
datur, propter nonnullos hereticos
addita queedam videntur, per que
novelle doctrinze sensus crederetur
excludi.” — [§ 3. ad caleem Op. &
Cypr. p. excix.]
G
CHAP. V.—
δ. oe δὲν
[97]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHUROH.
' ἀδιακρί-
TWS.
Aispévous.
3 Tgaiah i.
21.
* proprie-
tate,
82 The Divine Sonship is expressed in the words, * only Son.”
by their novel doctrine might be excluded.” Thus he writes.
And, indeed, it is clear that the Simonians, the Cerinthians,
the Ebionites, and the other pests of the primitive Church,
did not spread their impious dogmas at Rome, but in the
East, and especially in Asia. Hence Ignatius, in the Epistles
which, he addressed to the Asiatic Churches, glances at those
heretics throughout; but, when writing to the Romans, he
does not reprehend any heresy as existing in their Church.
So far from it, in the very salutation he expressly commends
the Romans for their perfect purity of faith, calling them”
“ united in-every commandment of Christ, filled without
distinction’ with the grace of God, and strained off’ from
every strange colour.” And on this account principally, as
I conceive, Tertullian, in his Prescription against Heresies,
chap. 36°, calls the Church of Rome, felicem ecclesiam,—
“happy and prosperous” in condition. O that this happi-
ness, this purity of faith, had been perpetual in that Church !
but, alas! we may now exclaim in the words of the inspired:
prophet, “ How is the faithful city become an harlot*! ”
4. I come to the third proposition, on the proof of which
I must dwell longer. That, at any rate, in the Roman Creed
Christ is called the one-only, or only-begotten Son of God,
(τὸν μονογενῆ,) in respect to His divine nature, whereby He
was in being not merely before [His birth of] Mary, but
also before all ages, of and with God the Father, admits of:
easy proof, from the passages of Scripture in which the term
only-begotten ” (μονογενὴς) is found applied to Christ, (for.
there is no ground for our suspecting that the Church took
the word in any other sense than that in which it is used in
the Scriptures, from which it was derived,) from the force
and proper meaning‘ of the term itself, from the order
and context of the words of the creed, and lastly, from the
consistent and unvarying sense and interpretation of the
Catholic Church. | ;
First, as regards the Scriptures: the first passage where
the term occurs, as applied to Christ, is John i. 14; “ And
the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we
> ἡνωμένοις ἐν πάσῃ ἐντολῇ Χριστοῦ, τρίου xpduaros.—[p. 25.]
πεπληρωμένοις χάριτος Θεοῦ ἀδιακρίτως, ¢ [P. 215.]
καὶ amodwAiwpévois ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀλλο-
i. This is the meaning of the words in Scripture. 88
beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the «παρ. y.
Father (μονογενοῦς παρὰ Iarpds). Where it is manifest 5% *.
that the expression, μονογενὴς παρὰ Llartpos, “ only-begotten
of the Father,” is the same in meaning as μόνος παρὰ
Πατρὸς γεννηθεὶς, “alone begotten of the Father,” the verbal
noun having the force of the verb. Those who refer the
words παρὰ Iarpés, “of the Father,’ to δόξαν, “the glory,”
introduce into the sentence without any necessity an over-
harsh transposition, and besides, an ellipsis of the participle
παραληφθεῖσαν, “received ” [g.d. “ glory received from the
Father” ]. But the words μονογενὴς παρὰ Ilarpos seem to me
to express the divine generation of the Son from the Father
more significantly than if the Apostle had written μονογενὴς [99]
tov Ilarpés; inasmuch as the preposition παρὰ suggests the |
idea of the Word being in such sense the only Son of
God the Father, as that He alone was truly begotten by ὁ 1 ab.
and οὐ" the Father Himself. Besides, it is to the Word, ? ex.
who was in the beginning with God, and was God, and by
whom all things were made, (verses 1, 2,) that this title is
assigned by the Apostle; from which it is clear, that it
is with respect to His divine nature, wherein He existed
before the worlds, that Christ is called ‘the only-begotten
of the Father ” (μονογενῆς παρὰ Ilatpds). Nor, lastly, is
Grotius’s observation foreign to the point, [viz.| that John in
this passage is glancing at the Gnostics, who made the Logos
one, the Only-begotten another, and Jesus a third; and who
reckoned the Only-begotten amongst their Alons, which were
produced before the creation of this world. The Apostle
therefore shews that Christ our Lord alone is the true Logos,
and likewise the true Only-begotten of the Father, inasmuch
as He alone was begotten of the Father before the worlds. In
the same sense the word μονογενὴς, “ only-begotten,” must
be explained in other passages where it occurs, (for instance,
John iii. 16, and 1 John iv. 9;) and that according to the
explanation of Episcopius himself, who argues from those
passages thus’; “ It is certain that ” (in those passages, that
is,) “that charity and love of God is extolled and lauded
in very high terms, by which He sent His only-begotten
and own* Son into the world, and even gave Him up to the *proprium.
a [P. 387.]
~
α 3
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHUROH.
1 filios.
[100]
2 quee
dilectionis
ἐξοχή,
97
84. The only Son means the Son considered in his Divine Nature,
death of the cross itself, to save sinners, the children’ of
God’s wrath. But if the only-begotten Son of God mean
nothing else than Jesus, so far forth as He was born man of
the Virgin, the reason why that love is so greatly extolled
does not appear so clearly as it would, if the only-begotten
Son of God signify the Son whom the Father begat before
the worlds. For that Son who was born of the Virgin Mary,
was born of her for this reason, that He might be given up
unto death for sinners. But what preeminent love’ is there
in God’s having given up that Son unto death, whom He
willed to be born of Mary, and to be conceived of the Holy
Spirit, for that purpose that He might die for sinners? But
if, on the other hand, you conceive the Son of God to be
Him who was begotten of the Father before all worlds, who
needed not to be sent into the world, who needed not to
have become man, whose dignity was greater than that He
should be sent or come in the flesh, much less be delivered
up to death, and who indeed, as His only-begotten and one-
only Son, seemed to be too dear to the Father to be thus
forcibly thrust by Him into so great misery; in that case,
the charity and loving-kindness of God toward the race of
man does indeed shine forth in amazing splendour and glory.”
Thus writes Episcopius. Would that he had thus written all—
would that he had thus written always! Indeed, to any one who
considers the subject with attention, it will be manifest that,
on the Socinian or the Arian hypothesis, God in this matter
has shewn His love and good-will rather towards that His
own Son than towards us men. For what? He who is called
Christ, was, out of God’s mere good-will and pleasure, chosen
to such favour as, after a short exercise of obedience to God
here on earth, Himself to become God from being simply
man, according to the Socinians, or, as the Arian heretics
say, [from being] a mere creature subject to change; and to
attain to divine honours, to be paid to Him not only by us
men, but also by the very angels and archangels, and accord-
ingly to obtain dominion and power over all other creatures.
I say moreover, that not even does the love and charity of
God’s only-begotten Son Himself towards us men clearly
appear, (although that also [as well as the love of the Father}
is throughout celebrated in exalted terms in the Holy Scrip-
in Scripture, τι. The very term, “only-begottenSon,” implies it. 85
tures, and especially in the well-known passage in the Epistle cuar. v.
to the Ephesians, 111. 18, 19,) unless we imagine the Son of Wee.
God to be Him who was begotten of the Father before all
worlds, by whom all things were made, who for us men, and
for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incar- [101]
nate, &c. But, on the contrary, that “ most eminent love
of the Son of God to His own workmanship,” as we have
heard St. Irenzeus speak a little before, is in this way very
clearly seen; this, however, by the way. For the rest, I do
not see how Episcopius can be reconciled with Episcopius.
In those passages of Scripture where Christ is called “ the
only-begotten Son of God,’ he contends that the only-
begotten Son of God altogether means the Son, whom the
Father begat before the worlds, and that therefore under that
title is contained that special mode of the Sonship of Jesus
Christ. Yet when in the creed, which is composed out of the
Scriptures, we confess our faith in Christ, the only-begotten
Son of God, he utterly denies that in those words is con-
tained the said special mode of the Sonship of Jesus Christ.
5. Secondly, that Christ is called in the creed the “ one-
only,” or “only-begotten”’ Son of God, in respect to His divine
nature, may be proved from the force and proper meaning of
the term itself. For He is called “only-begotten ” (μονογενὴς)
who alone is Son without any to share in His Sonship'; that ' sine
is, whom His Father has as His one-only [Son], and who, in pba:
that kind of Sonship from which He is called the Son, has
no brother; and who moreover is Son by nature, begotten of
the Father Himself, not made a Son (υἱοποιητὸς), not taken
or adopted to be a Son. But Christ cannot in this sense be
called “the only-begotten” Son of God, unless you regard His
divine generation of the Father. For that title does not
belong to Him considered as man. And that this may
appear more clearly, we will examine those four modes in
which (as Episcopius contends) Christ, even as man, is in the
Scriptures called by way of preeminence? the Son of God. =? kar’
The first mode is, “ because, so far forth as He is man, He “°X™
was conceived of the Holy Ghost.” And he cites Luke i. 35 ;
“The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of
the Highest shall overshadow thee: wherefore also that
holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[102]
1 Περὶ
εὐγενείας.
86 Christ, as man, i. as born of the Virgin, is the
Son of God.” In reply; I will at present say nothing of
the interpretation of this passage by Justin Martyr and
Tertullian, who explain “the Holy Ghost” (πνεῦμα ἅγιον)
and “the power of the Highest” (δύναμιν “ὙΨ ίστου), of the
Word Himself; nor will I insist on the criticism of Novatian,
who places an emphasis upon the particle καί, The answer
I make is this; that in this passage Christ, as man, is called
“the Son of God,” on the ground of His being conceived by
the Holy Ghost in the Blessed Virgin’s womb, but yet He
is not there called the “ one-only” or “ only-begotten” Son
of God. But Episcopius says, “ This preeminence” (meaning
that whereby He was formed in the Virgin’s womb by the
power of God) “is peculiar to Jesus Christ as man, to which
none other either has been like, or ever will be.” I reply,
that this is not true, and for this reason; the flesh of Christ
was conceived and formed in the Virgin’s womb without a
father, by divine power and operation. But was not the
first man formed without either father or mother, by the
hands of God Himself? And is he not on this account
expressly called, in Luke i. 38, “the son of God?” There-
fore it is not in this that that preeminence of Jesus Christ
consists, from which He is called the one-only or only-
begotten Son; nay, on this ground the first Adam will be
in a certain sense superior to the second; inasmuch as the
former was made by God, without either father or mother,
but the latter without a father only. That wonderful gene-
ration of the first man is beautifully described by Philo
Judzus in his treatise On Noble Birth'!, where he thus
speaks of him; “ who for nobleness of origin is not to be
compared with any mortal, fashioned as he was into a bodily
image by the divine hands in the perfection of plastic art;
and endued with a soul, not from any of the beings which
had as yet been created, God having breathed into him as
much of the divine power as mortal nature was able to
receive. Was not his, then, a preeminence of noble origin,
© See Justin’s Apol. ii. p. 75. [Apol.
i. 33. p. 64.) and Tertull. adv. Prax.
©, 26. Novat. de Trin. 6. 19.
{ ὃς ἕνεκα εὐγενείας οὐδενὶ θνητῷ
σύγκριτος, χερσὶ μὲν θείαις εἰς ἀνδριάντα
τὸν σωματοειδῆ τυπωθεὶς ἀκρότητι τέχ-
vns πλαστικῆς' ψυχῆς. δὲ ἀξιωθεὶς ἀπ᾽
οὐδενὸς ἔ ἔτι τῶν εἰς γέννησιν ἡκόντων,
ἐμπνεύσαντος Θεοῦ τῆς θείας δυνάμεως
ὅσον ἠδύνατο δέξασθαι θνητὴ φύσις. ἦν
ἄρ᾽ οὐχ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς εὐγενείας, μηδε-
μιᾶς τῶν ἄλλων, αἱ δὴ ὠνομάσθησαν, εἶς
Son of God; but not the only Son: the case of Adam. 87
with which not one of all those others which have been nar. y..
already named is capable of being brought into comparison ?
For their glory proceeds from the noble birth of their an-
cestors; but their ancestors were human, mortal creatures,
and corruptible, and their high estate for the most part was
uncertain and ephemeral; whilst his Father was no mortal,
nor was any mortal the author of his being, but God.”
Accordingly, St. Irenzus affirms that Christ, as man, the
second Adam, was in His generation made like unto the first
Adam; not indeed entirely, but preserving a likeness, so
far as was possible, and as the economy of our salvation
would allow. Thus in book iii. 318, after he had observed
that just as the first-created man was formed by the hands of
God Himself out of the earth, yet virgin («e. not yet pressed.
by labour, not yet subdued for seed-sowing, as Irenzeus is
interpreted by Tertullian in his work On the Flesh of
Christ"), so Christ, the Restorer of the first Adam, in that
He was man, was made of the Virgin Mary by the Holy
Ghost, he shortly after subjoins the following ; ‘‘ Now, since
he was taken from the ground, and He that formed him was
God, it was necessary also that He who thus summeth up?! ἀνακεφα-
into Himself man that had been formed by God, should have *“?""””
the same likeness of His generation with him. Why there-
fore did God not take dust again, but cause Him to be
formed from Mary? [It was] in order that there might not _
be another nature formed, and that which is saved’ might ? σωζόμε-
not be another thing; but that he himself might be summed “Tl 04]
up* [in Him], the similitude being preserved.” That chiefs ἀγακεφα.
preeminence of our Saviour’s Sonship, therefore, whereby **®-
He is called “the only-begotten” or one-only Son of God,
by no means consists in this, that He was produced of the
Virgin Mary by the power of the Most High without a
human father; since thus far the first man was on a par
[103]
38
σύγκρισιν ἐλθεῖν δυναμένης ; τῶν μὲν γὰρ
τὸ κλέος ἐκ προγόνων εὐγενείας" ἄνθρω-
ποι δὲ οἱ πρόγονοι, ζῶα ἐπίκηρα καὶ φθαρ-
τὰ, καὶ αἱ τούτων ἀβέβαιοι καὶ ἐφήμεροι
τὰ πολλὰ εὐπραγίαι" τοῦ δὲ Πατὴρ μὴ
θνητὸς οὐδεὶς, οὐδὲ αἴτιος, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ Θεός,
-ἶνο!. 11, p.440.] .
8 εἰ δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἐκ γῆς ἐλήφθη, πλα-
ὅτὴς δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς, ἔδει καὶ τὸν dva-
κεφαλαιούμενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ
πεπλασμένον ἄνθρωπον τὴν αὐτὴν ἐκείνῳ
τῆς γεννήσεως ἔχειν ὁμοιότητα. εἰς τί
οὖν πάλιν οὐκς ἔλαβε χοῦν ὁ Θεὸς, ἀλλ᾽
ἐκ Μαρίας ἐνήργησε τὴν πλάσιν γενέ-
σθαι ; ἵνα μὴ ἄλλη πλάσις γένηται, μηδὲ
ἄλλο τὸ σωζόμενον, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος
ἀνακεφαλαιωθῇ, τηρουμένης τῆς ὁμοιότη-
τος.---ἰο. 21. 10. p. 218.]
h{e. 17. p. 321.]
88 - St. Paul’s contrast of the first and second Adam;
sopcmenr With, and in a certain sense superior to Him ;=but in a very
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[105]
much more sublime generation, even that whereby He was
the Son of God, not only before [His birth of the Virgin]
Mary, but before Adam himself, and so before all worlds.
At any rate, if one looks at the origin of each, in no respect
does the second Adam excel the first, except in this one
point of difference, and that the greatest possible—that the
one was a mere man (ψυλὸς ἄνθρωπος), and the other was
God and man (Θεάνθρωπος). Whatever was added to the
human nature of the second Adam, whereby He was superior
to the first, was to be attributed wholly to that union
whereby the soul of Christ was conjoined with the Word
or Divine Person of the only-begotten Son of God, in “a
perfect and most intimate association” (ἄκρᾳ καὶ ἀνυπερ-
βλήτῳ κοινωνίᾳ, as Origen expresses the hypostatical union’).
It is in this way (I would observe in passing) that the holy
Apostle makes a comparison between the first and the second
Adam, in 1 Cor. xv. 47; “ The first man is of the earth,
earthy ; the second Man is the Lord from heaven” (ὁ Κύριος
ἐξ οὐρανοῦ). Utterly mistaken are they who maintain that
the ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (“ from heaven’) is predicated of the second
Adam, from His having been conceived and born of the
Virgin Mary without a father, by power altogether divine
and heavenly; for on this ground the first man also, as we
have already seen, would have been from heaven. "What the
meaning of the words “to be from heaven” is, as opposed
to the words “to be of the earth earthy,” is clear enough
from the words of St. John the Baptist, who compares himself
in a similar manner, as a son of Adam, with Christ our Lord,
John 111. 31; “ He that cometh from above is above all; he
that is of the earth is earthy, and speaketh of the earth; He
that cometh from heaven is above all.” With which by all
means compare chap. i. 30. Besides which, I have no doubt
at all but that ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ Κύριος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (‘the Man,
the Lord from heaven ”’) is the same as He whom the
Cabalistic Jews call JAIN) ΗΠ ΟΝ (“the Man that
is above, the Blessed’’) ; a periphrasis which the Hebrews
employ to designate none but the true God. For, no doubt,
what the Cabalists taught touching the espousals of this
i [Contra Cels. vi. 48. p. 670.]
this involves the doctrine of the Divine Nature of Christ. 89
Man that is above, the Blessed, with the ND3D, i.e. the con-
gregation of Israel, being mystically signified by the union
of the earthly Adam and Eve, has been by the Apostle,
Ὁ Eph. v. 32, manifestly applied to the union between Christ
and the Church. And the Apostle’s words in verse 45 [of
1 Cor. xv. | must be understood of Christ in the same sense ;
“The first man Adam was made a living soul (εἰς ψυχὴν
ζῶσαν) ; the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit (εἰς
πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν)." The first man was made into a living
soul; that is, (according to a well-known Hebrew idiom,) he
was a living soul; the last, a quickening Spirit. The
meaning of which is, the first Adam was man only; the
second, more than man, even “a quickening Spirit,” that is,
God. The term πνεῦμα, “ Spirit,’ in Christ, as we have
often observed, denotes in the Scriptures throughout, as also
in the writers of the first century, the divine nature in Him ;
of which also what is here mentioned is a peculiar attri-
bute, viz. the quickening of, or giving life to, mankind ;
in respect of which Christ is elsewhere called ἀρχηγὸς τῆς
ζωῆς, “the Prince [or Author] of life,” Acts iii. 15; and fw),
“life” itself, Johni. 4. He is the Author of our every
life, natural, spiritual, and eternal, as Clement of Alexandria
beautifully expressed it in his Protrepticon*; “The Word,
who in the beginning gave unto us life, when He has
moulded us as Creator; manifesting Himself as our In-
structor, hath taught us good life, that hereafter, as God,
He might bestow upon us eternal life.” This interpretation,
as it arises necessarily out of the words of the text itself, so
does it best agree with the context. The Apostle had said
that there is a twofold body, natural and spiritual, which he
here shews from their contrary causes. For as we have
received these our animal and mortal bodies from the first
Adam, a mere man, and consisting of a body, in its own
nature at least, animal and mortal; so shall we hereafter
receive spiritual bodies from Christ, the second Adam, who
is more than man, in whom there is a divine nature, the
fountain of all life. Indeed, the transforming of our vile
κ Λόγος ὁ καὶ τὸ (ἣν ἐν ἀρχῇ μετὰ ἵνα τὸ ἀεὶ (ἣν ὕστερον ὡς Θεὸς χορη-
τοῦ πλάσαι παρασχὼν ὡς δημιουργὸς, τὸ yhon.—[p. 7.]
εὖ Civ ἐδίδαξεν ἐπιφανεὶς ὡς διδάσκαλος,
OHAP. V. -
§ 5.
[106]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
39
[107]
1 συγκατά-
Baow.
90 The birth of Christ, the consequence of His being the Son.
bodies into the likeness of His own glorious body, which
Christ shall effect in the resurrection, is (Phil. iii. 21) ex-
pressly attributed to His almighty power, which cannot
belong to Him except as God. And that is a vain interpre-
tation which Grotius has drawn up out of the muddy ditches
of the Socinians, viz. that Christ then at last became “a
quickening Spirit” (πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν), after He had risen from
the dead, and ascended into heaven. For, first, it is plain
enough that the Apostle is speaking of the original nature, so
to speak, of the first: and the second Adam, and not of either
such as he became afterwards. Secondly, He who was not
always ‘a quickening Spirit” could never have come to be
one. A “made God” must be reckoned among the portentous
inventions of the Socinians and the Arians, from which sound
reason no less than true religion shrinks back. Lastly, it
is certain that Christ, even before His resurrection, was
“a quickening Spirit” (πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν) ; for it was as such
that He recalled His own body from death to life, John 11. 19.
Whence that observation of Ignatius, the disciple of the
Apostles, in his- Epistle to the Smyrneans!, speaking of
Christ ; “ He truly suffered, as also He truly raised Him-
self up again.” The raising of the body of Christ from the
dead is indeed also attributed in the Scriptures to God the
Father. But what wonder? Whatsoever the Son does, He
does from the Father; and whatsoever the Father does, He
does through the Son. Hence the creation of all things is
attributed both to the Father and to the Son; inasmuch, that
is, as the Father created all things through the Son. But to
return to the point from which I digressed a little. So far is
the supreme and especial preeminence and excellence of the
Sonship of our Lord from consisting in His birth of the
Virgin Mary, that this very birth is altogether to be referred
to His amazing condescension!. ‘This is taught us clearly
enough, if only we were willing to be instructed by the Holy
Ghost, in several passages of the sacred Scriptures ; as indeed
Episcopius does not deny. Thus has the Catholic Church of
Christ always believed even from the very Apostles. Hence
Justin, in a passage which we have already ™ quoted, says that
1 ἀληθῶς ἔπαθεν, ὡς καὶ ἀληθῶς ἀνέ- m {Vid. c. ii. 14. p. 46.]
στησεν éavtdv.—[§ 2. p. 34.]
ii. From His Office, the Son, not the only-begotten Son. 91
the belief of Christians concerning Christ is that by which
_ they “acknowledge Christ to be the Son of God, who existed
before the morning-star and the moon, and endured to be
incarnate and born of this Virgin who was of the lineage of
David.” So also we have a little before ® quoted Irenzeus as
affirming, that all Christians throughout the world, in their
rule of faith, professed belief “‘in the Son of God, through
whom God the Father created all things, who out of most
eminent love to His own workmanship, underwent birth of the
Virgin.” Hence the six most famous bishops of the Council
of Antioch, in the Epistle which they addressed to Paul of
Samosata, not without the consent of the whole Synod,
declare with the utmost confidence that such was the con-
sentient doctrine and faith of the Universal Church. Their
words, when they speak of Christ, are as follow°®; “In the
whole Church that is under heaven, He is believed to be
CHAP. V.
δ 5, 6.
[108]
indeed God, who emptied Himself of His being equal with —
God; and man, and of the seed of David, according to the
flesh.” Hence, lastly, the Church now sings, and, though
Socinian and Arian heretics may burst with rage, the Church
will ever sing ? ;—
Thou art the King of glory, O Christ :
Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father :
When Thou tookest upon Thee to deliver man,
Thou didst not abhor the Virgin’s womb.
And thus far of the first mode, in which Episcopius has
observed that Christ, as man, is in the Scriptures called the
Son of God. | |
6. The second mode is, “That Jesus Christ is called the
Son of God, on account of that office which was imposed
upon Him by the special command of the Father. John x.
35, 36.” I answer, Ist, That Christ cannot on this account
be properly called the “begotten” Son of God, much less
the “ only-begotten.” He, who is in this manner a Son, is a
Son only by favour, not by nature. 2dly. That in this way
Christ would have many brethren, even all who at any time
» [P. 76.] ν P Tu Rex glorie, Christe :
© ἐν TH ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ ὑπὸ Thy οὐρανὸν Tu Patris sempiternus es Filius :
πάσῃ πεπίστευται Θεὸς μὲν κενώσας Tu, ad liberandum suscepturus
ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ εἶναι ἶσα Θεῷ, ἄνθρωπος hominem,
δὲ, καὶ ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ, τὸ κατὰ Non horruisti Virginis uterum.
odpra,—t{ Rell. Sacr. vol. ii. p. 473.]
[109]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHUROH.
1 Deus
ipsissimus.
92 John x., Christ calls Himself the Son of God, not because
were anointed by God to be kings or prophets, or were sent
with any special mission to the people of God. In this
sense of Sonship Christ might have been called the chief,
principal, or by far the most excellent Son of God, but cer-
tainly not the only-begotten. But, 3dly, if any one will look
more narrowly into the passage referred to, it will be clear to
him, that Christ did not therein either call Himself the Son
of God, or desire to be so regarded, for the especial reason of
having been sent to man by God as His ambassador, furnished
and provided with an extraordinary authority; but in a far
different and much more eminent way, as having existed,
I mean, with God the Father, before He was sent into the
world, as His true, genuine, and co-essential Son, and so as
most truly very God Himself’. Nor was Episcopius alto-
gether ignorant of this, since he himself, in another part of
his writings, drew out an argument from this passage for
_ the divine Sonship of our [Lord] Jesus in opposition to the
[John x.
25—30.]
40
2 διακριτι-
κῶς.
[110]
Socinians. It will, however, perhaps be worth our while,
by the way, to demonstrate this very point, somewhat more
fully and clearly than has been done by him.
It is manifest, that our Saviour in the preceding verses,
viz. from the 25th to the 30th inclusive, had been speaking to
the Jews in such a manner, as that they understood and be-
lieved Him to assert nothing else than that He was Himself
God. In the 33d verse, they say ; “ For a good work we stone
Thee not, but for blasphemy ; and because that Thou, being
a man, makest Thyself God.” For He had frequently called
God by way of distinction’ His Father, and just before He had
said that Himself and the Father were one. Now it should
be carefully observed, that Christ did not give that answer,
which, unless He had known Himself to be truly God, He
ought certainly to have returned—namely, that He was not
really God, and had never at any time professed Himself to
be so; (for by this answer, if true, He might easily have
appeased the anger of the Jews; while it was also His duty,
in the plainest terms and with abhorrence, to repel the
charge of blasphemy alleged against Him;) but on the con-
trary He intimated, and that in no obscure terms, that
He was the very Son of God, and consequently God. For
He-defended Himself against the Jews on two grounds;
of His Office; but because He is truly and by nature the Son. 98
first, by an argument taken out of their own law, viz. from omar. v.
~ Psalm Ixxxii. 6; “ Jesus answered them, Is it not written din
in your law, I said, Ye are gods ?”” Which passage, as Grotius
has rightly remarked, is evidently to be understood of the
judges of the great Sanhedrim. Now from this passage
Christ argues thus in His own defence, verses 35, 36; “If
He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and
the Scripture cannot be broken; do ye say of Me, whom the
Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, that I blas-
pheme, because I said, I am the Son of God?” This argu-
ment, from the less to the greater, plainly runs thus; If they,
who have nothing divine in them, even the judges of the
great Sanhedrim, to whom the passage in the Psalms refers,
(for I agree with Capellus, who was of opinion, that the
article of 6 λόγος has here a relative * force, so as to refer to * ἀναφορι-
Psalm Ixxxii., which Christ had quoted in verse 34,) are called “””
gods, solely on the ground that they exhibit in themselves
an imperfect image of the divine power and authority; how
much more may I, who am by nature the Son of God, and
am, moreover, authorized in a most eminent manner by God
the Father, be called the Son of God, and even God? Christ,
however, did not make this very statement in express terms,
but yet He intimated it, not obscurely, in the words, “ Me,
whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world.”
Observe, He does not say, “ Me, whom God hath sanctified ;”
but “ Me, whom the Father hath sanctified ;””? shewing, that
His having been sanctified by God (ἐ. 6. separated and marked
out for the work assigned to Him) and sent into the world,
was not the primary reason why He regarded God as His
Father; but, on the contrary, that God was already His
Father, when He sanctified Him and sent Him into the [111]
world. Besides, I have no doubt but that Maldonatus was
- correct, in laying a stress on the words, “ and sent into the
world,” by which is signified, that Christ is the Son of God,
not begotten, after the manner of all others, on earth, but
in heaven, and sent therefrom into this world. For the Lord
thus explains Himself more clearly, when addressing His
disciples, John xvi. 28; “ I came forth from the Father, and
am come into the world; again, I leave the world, and go to
the Father.” That Christ in these words intimated, that
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHUROH.
1 Jema.
[119]
94 Christ’s Divinity clearly taught in that passage, Johnx.” -
He had existed in heaven in His higher nature with God
as His Father, before He first came into this world, m other
words, before His birth as man, no one will fail at once to
see, unless his sight be dimmed by the humours’ of So-
cinianism. Compare John iii. 18, But our Lord proceeds in
His own defence, and establishes His divinity, which He has
in common with the Father, by another argument, derived
from His miracles, verses.37,38,; ‘If I do not the works of
my Father, believe Me not; but if I do, though ye believe
not Me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe
that the Father isin Me, andIin Him.” As if He had said;
Because I by way of distinction called Myself the Son of God
the Father, and further affirmed that Myself and My Father
are one, ye therefore charge Me with blasphemy. And,
indeed, this accusation of yours would not perhaps seem to
be unjustly urged, if I had established My divinity by words
only, and not by deeds also. Since, however, I am perform-
ing the very same works of omnipotence as my Father, why
do ye not believe that I am of the same nature with Him?
I do not ask you to trust My own testimony respecting
Myself; but I do ask you to be persuaded at any rate by
My works, that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father, in
other words, that (as I said before) I and the Father are one.
From this it is clear, that when the Jews fastened on our
Lord the charge of blasphemy, for having called Himself by
way of distinction the Son of God, and for having, by so doing,
intimated not obscurely that He was God, He replied to them
in such a manner as that, far from denying this very thing,
that He was in such sense the Son of God, He actually esta-
blished it by the strongest arguments. And this even the
Jews themselves very clearly perceived, who, notwithstand-
ing they were dull and stupid enough, do yet convict the
Socinians, who wish to be thought the most clear-sighted of
men, of the grossest blindness. For they were so far from
acquitting Christ from the charge of blasphemy on account of
this answer of His, that, on the contrary, they, for that very
reason, again attempted to destroy Him as a blasphemer.
For in the 39th verse it further says; ‘‘ Therefore they sought
again to take Him: but He escaped out of their hands.” By
using the particle οὖν, “therefore,” the Evangelist intimates,
τ our Saviour had been speaking in His own defence, and
iii. From His Resurrection the Son, but not the only Son. 95
that the Jews were again irritated by the very words which a
wished to apprehend Him, for the purpose of thrusting Him
out of the temple (where He had been holding this discourse,
verse 28) and stoning Him to death. For Grotius is entirely
wrong, when he interprets these words, as if, in consequence
of our Lord having so cleared Himself of the charge of 41]
blasphemy, as that not a semblance of it was left, the Jews
changed their purpose of stoning Him as a blasphemer, and
directed their efforts to apprehend Him and hand Him over
to the Sanhedrim, which would find some other accusation
against Him. For the Jews did not wish to apprehend Christ
for the purpose of bringing Him before the Sanhedrim; but
to lead Him away to some place, where they might kill Him
without sacrilege. For the temple, within the limits of which
the Lord stood and spoke, was in all its parts sacred, and not
to be defiled by any slaughter or blood. Compare Acts xxi. 30.
Besides, the word πάλιν, “again,” shews clearly enough, that
the wish of the Jews was to do that a second time against
Christ, which they were about to do before, that is, to stone
Him, verse 31. In which passage also, [%. 6. in the 815 verse, [113]
as well as in the 39th,] the word πάλιν, “again,” occurs,
and plainly indicates some other time besides, when on a
similar occasion the Jews wished to destroy Christ by stoning,
of which we read in John viii. 59. For there also, from the
discourse of Christ, when He declared, verse 58, that He was
in being before Abraham, the Jews drew the right conclusion,
that Christ had attributed to Himself a certain nature, in
which He had existed before Abraham, that is, a divine
nature, and so had said that He was God.
7. I proceed to consider the third mode, in which Episco-
pilus observes that Christ, even so far as He is man, is
called in Scripture the Son of God; namely, “because He
was raised from the dead to life immortal by the Father,
and was, as it were, born anew, out of the womb of the
earth, without the medium of a mother, Acts xiii. 32, 33.”
1 answer; Christ could not in this way be called the only-
begotten Son of God, since in this sense all good men, who
rise again, are designated “the children of God, being the
children of the resurrection,’ Luke xx. 36. In respect,
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 primo-
genitus.
[114]
96 In what sense Christ was, by His Resurrection, made the Son.
indeed, of His resurrection, the Man Christ might be called
“ the first-begotten ’,’’ that is, [the first-begotten | of the dead ;
and so He is expressly called, in Col. i. 18 9, because He was
the first of all the dead who returned from death unto life,
never to die again. Besides this, in those passages of Scrip-
ture in which the epithet μονογενὴς, ‘ only-begotten,” occurs
as applied to Christ, God the Father is said to have sent His
only-begotten Son into the world, and to have given Him to
men, John iii. 16; 1 Johniv.9. So that He was already
God's only-begotten Son, when He first came into the world,
and not then at length, when, after He had been removed
from the world by death, and then was raised again from
the dead, He was on the point of passing to another, 7.e. the
heavenly, world. Since, however, in the passage which Epi-
scopius cites, viz. Acts xi. 32, 33, the Apostle Paul applies
the words of David in the second Psalm, “'Thou art My Son,
this day have I begotten Thee,” to the resurrection of Christ
from the dead; it must be observed, in opposition to the
modern Artemonites, that this must not be so understood as
though Christ, by and after His resurrection, began at last
in the most eminent sense to be the Son of God, and to be
_ begotten of Him, but that He was then by the resurrection
most powerfully declared and shewn to be the true and only-
begotten Son of God. For this is the manner of Scripture,
to say that things then come to be, when they are manifested
and discover themselves. Accordingly Justin Martyr, as we
have elsewhere observed, in his Dialogue with Trypho, after
citing the passage of the Psalmist, immediately adds"; “ He
says, that His nativity then took place (γίνεσθαι) to men, from
the period that the knowledge of Him was about to be given
to them *.”” Thus indeed does Paul himself interpret himself,
in his Epistle to the Romans, i. 3,4; [epi τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ,
τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα" τοῦ δὁρισθέντος
υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει, κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, ἐξ ἀναστάσεως
4 Compare Apocal. i. 5.—GraBeE.
t τότε γένεσιν αὐτοῦ λέγων γίνεσθαι
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἐξότου ἣ γνῶσις αὐτοῦ
ἔμελλε γίνεσθαι. ---- p. 816. [ὃ 88, p.
186.]
s [A remarkable passage is adduced
by Thirlby from the Symposium of
Methodius ; τὸ δὲ ᾿Εγὼ σήμερον γεγέν-
νηκά σε, ὅτι προόντα ἤδη πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανυῖς ἐβουλήθην καὶ τῷ κόσμῳ
γεννῆσαι, ὃ δή ἐστι, προσθὲν ἀγνοούμενον
γνωρίσαι.----ΟΥαῦ. viii. p. 112. “* This
day have I begotten Thee: ὁ. 6. Thee,
who wast already in being in the hea-
vens before the worlds, I have willed
to beget also to the world ; that is, to
make Thee known, who wast before
unknown.”—B. |
He was thus declared and proved to be the Son of God. 97
νεκρῶν. ““ Concerning His Son [Jesus Christ our Lord], omar. v.
which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, 5"
and declared to be the Son of God, with power, according to
the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.”
Here, says Chrysostom *, ὁρισθέντος, “ declared,” is the same
as δεύχθέντος, ἀποφανθέντος, κριθέντος, ὁμολογηθέντος παρὰ
τῆς ἁπάντων γνώμης καὶ ψήφου, i.e. “exhibited, manifested,
adjudged, confessed by the opinion and suffrage of all men”
[to be the Son of God]. So also the Greek scholia, ‘Opc-
σθέντος, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ἀποδειχθέντος, ἀποφανθέντος, “ declared,
that is, demonstrated, manifested.” The Syriac translator [115]
also renders the word “ who was acknowledged ;” and the
Aathiopic version to the same effect, “whom He” (ὁ. 6. God
the Father) “declared to be the Son of God.” The Latin
translator alone (contrary to the evidence!" of all the Greek ' fidem.
MSS.) renders it, ‘‘ who was predestinated to be the Son of
God,” as if it had been written in the text, προορισθέντος.
But in what sense was Christ declared and demonstrated by
the resurrection to be the Son of God? No doubt as the
Son of God, coessential with God His Father, and therefore
Himself God.. For just as κατὰ σάρκα, “ according to the
flesh,” in this passage, denotes the human nature of Christ,
so does κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, “ according to the Spirit of
holiness,” indicate His divine nature: again, as Christ is said
to be “of the seed of David,’ that is, the Son of David,
“according to the flesh ;” so ‘according to the Spirit of
holiness” is He called the Son of God; we have so often
observed, that the word πνεῦμα, “ Spirit,” applied to Christ,
especially when opposed to His flesh, indicates His divine
nature, that we need not again remind the reader of it. And
it ought not to appear strange, that Christ, considered as the
Son of God and God, is here called “the Spirit of holiness,”
an appellation which we generally apply to the Third Person
of the Godhead; inasmuch as the same divine, spiritual, and
holy nature is common to each several Person’ of the Trinity. ὑποστά-
Accordingly Hermas also, Paul’s contemporary, expressly °“
calls the Divine Person of the Son of God, “ the Holy Spirit ”
(Spiritum Sanctum), and Ignatius, who was also of the
apostolic age, and a careful imitator of Paul’s language, [calls 42
* (Hom. i. in Rom, vol. ix. p, 482.) [See however Griesbach.—B. ]
BULL.—J. ©. ©. H
98 iv. Could not be called the Only-begotten Son, from His
govement Him] “an immaculate Spirit” (πνεῦμα ἄμωμον), as we have
cantor ObServed in the Def. Fid. Nic. i. 2.5. [p. 49.] But Ignatius,
cuuRoH. as it appears to me, certainly had this passage of the Apostle
Paul in view, and gave a sort of paraphrase of it in that
well-known place which we have several times quoted in this
[116] work, and elsewhere, from his Epistle to the Ephesians * 5;
“There is one Physician, both fleshly and spiritual, made and
not-made (or chi and not-begotten), having become God
incarnate” (ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεὸς), (instead of which Athana-
sius, Theodoret, and Gelasius read ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ Θεὸς, “ God in
man,”) “true life in death, both of Mary and of God.” Here,
_ as in St. Paul, a twofold nature is attributed to Christ, “a
fleshly and a spiritual” (σαρκικὴ καὶ πνευματική) : according
to the fleshly nature, ὁ. 6. Paul’s κατὰ σάρκα, Christ is called
“begotten” or “made,” and “mortal man ;” according to
His spiritual nature, that is, Paul’s κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης,
He is said to be “ not-begotten ” or “ not-made,” to be “ true
life” and so God: considered as “ fleshly,”’ He is said to be
“of Mary,” i.e. of the seed of David; regarded as “ spiri-
tual,’ He is said to be “ of God,” that is, the Son of God.
Compare 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Peter ii. 18, 19, 20.
8. There remains the fourth and last mode, in which Epi-
scopius holds that Christ as man is designated in Scripture
the Son of God, namely, ‘* because Jesus Christ, when raised
from the dead, was constituted sole heir in His Father’s house,
and in consequence became Lord of all the heavenly posses-
sions and of all His Father’s ministers, that is, the angels;
Heb. i. 2.” I answer, that Christ could not, on this ground
only, be called the Son of God properly, muck less His
only-begotten Son. For an heir is not necessarily the true
and natural, much less the only-begotten son of him whose
heir he is; because any relation, or even a stranger, may be
adopted and taken as an heir. Besides, our Lord, as has been
said a little above, was the only-begotten Son of God when
He was first sent into this world by His Father; He was not
[117] therefore then at length made the only-begotten Son of God,
when He was received back into His Father’s heavenly man-
sion, and there constituted Heir and Lord of all.
x [§ 7. p. 18. See above, chap. i. § 1.]
being made Heir of all. Socinian explanation of Heb. i. 99
' With respect, however, to the passage [which Episcopius
quotes] from the Epistle to the Hebrews i. 1, 2,—Christ is not
there called the Son, much less the only-begotten Son of
God, because He was appointed heir of all things ; but, on the
contrary, it is said that He was made heir who was previously
a Son—a Son too, by whom God the Father had made the
worlds, and who therefore existed before the worlds. The
words are these; “God hath in these last days spoken unto
us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things,
by whom also He made,” or had made, “ the worlds” (δι᾿ οὗ
καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίησεν). The Socinians’ interpretation of
this passage is a marvellous device, to the effect, that God is
said to have created the worlds [or ages, secula,| by the
Son, inasmuch as by Him He reformed and renewed the
human race, and brought it, as it were, into a new state.
Surely one might safely swear, that of the Hebrews, to whom
this Epistle was written, not one individual could have been
found, who would have understood the writer’s words in this
sense, or would ever have dreamt, that by τοὺς αἰῶνας, “ the
worlds,” was signified only the human race, much less that
part of it on whom the light of the Gospel then had shone.
Οἱ αἰῶνες, “the worlds,” is a Hebraism, meaning the whole
of created things; it occurs again in this Epistle to the
Hebrews, xi.3; “ Through faith we understand that the worlds
(τοὺς αἰῶνας) were framed by the word of God.” And in
no other passage, I believe, either in the sacred Scriptures
of the New Testament, or in any profane writer among the
Greeks, will you find the words τοὺς αἰῶνας in this sense.
In the liturgy of the Jews, however, God is throughout
called ὉΠ “ἢ, “Lord of the ages,” or “ worlds,”
τῶν αἰώνων, that is, “of all created things.” For it has
been observed by those, who are acquainted with Hebrew
literature, that they make a threefold 55) yy, “eon,” or world. .
The first is bow σῦν, “the lower world,” 1.6. this re-
gion of the elements; the second is J) SINT my, “the
middle world,” that is, the orbs of heaven; the third is
yoy π codiy, “the upper world,” that is to say, the dwell-
ing-place of the Divine Majesty and of the angels; which the
Apostle calls “the third heaven,” 2 Cor. xii. 2. That all
these αἰῶνες, therefore, all these se@cula, these worlds, were
H 2
CHAP. V.
§ 7, 8.
[118]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHUROH,
48
[119]
100 Psalm civ., cited Ποῦ. i. 10, &c. addressed to the Son,
created by God the Father through His Son;-is what the
sacred writer meant to inform us. This he again expressly
affirms in the same chapter, verses 10, 11, 12, where he says,
that these words of the Psalmist’ were addressed to the Son.
of God; ‘“ Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the founda-
tion of the earth; and the heavens are the works of Thine
hands. They shall perish, but Thou remainest: and they all
shall wax old, as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt
Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed. But Thou:
art the same, and Thy years shall not fail’? Now what do
the heretics make of this agam? They keep to their old
course. For they say that the passage quoted from the
Psalmist was not addressed to the Son of God; and affirm
that only that portion of it which refers to an event as yet
unaccomplished, but which will be fulfilled in time, namely,
the destruction of the world, is applied by the author in the
way of accommodation to the Son. Now, (not to mention,
that the manifest design of the writer is, to demonstrate the
preeminence of the Son of God by those things which did
already actually belong to Him; and moreover, that both
the creation and the destruction of the world are alike the
work of that divine omnipotence, which cannot be commu-
nicated to any created being,) what is this, but a shameless
contradiction of the sacred writer, as it were to his very
face? But then, say they, it is too plain, that these words
of the Psalmist were addressed to the most high God, even
to God the Father. Be it so; what then? Does it thence
follow, that they were not likewise addressed to God the
Son? On the contrary, whatsoever was said to God the
Father, as the Creator of all things, was also said to the Son
of God; inasmuch as God the Father made the universe
by the Son, as the author had previously declared. Now
although this 102d Psalm appears to be nothing else than
a prayer, whether of the people or of the prophet, addressed
to God for the restoration of the city of Jerusalem which
had been overthrown by the Chaldeans, yet (as most com-
mentators have remarked) just as the earthly Jerusalem was
a figure of the Church of Christ, so what is said in the Psalm
Υ Psalm cii. 25.
__as creating all things ; as the context of the Psalm requires. 101
respecting the restoration of the earthly Jerusalem is to be
referred, mystically, to the building of the spiritual Jeru-
salem, which is from above, in other words, of the Church,
which is the city and kingdom of Christ. For only in Christ
and the Church is there a perfect accomplishment of the
following words of this Psalm’; “Thou shalt arise and have
mercy upon Zion; for it is time that Thou have mercy upon
her, yea, the time is come.” And, “The heathen shall fear
Thy name, O Lord, and all the kings of the earth Thy glory ;
when the Lord shall build up Zion, and when His glory
shall appear.” And, “The Lord hath looked down from
heaven upon the earth,” &c. Also, “When the people are
gathered together, and the kingdoms also, to serve the Lord.”
Therefore all the rest, which is there said of God, belongs to
Christ. Which indeed, even if it were in nowise plain from
the context of the Psalm, must yet certainly have been con-
‘ceded to the authority of an inspired writer. I will add, that
even the literal sense of the Psalm, so far, that is, as it relates
to the liberation of the people of God from the Babylonian
captivity, pertains to Christ, inasmuch as He, as the Word
‘and Son of God always in being with God His Father, has
constantly and from the beginning presided and watched
over the Church, and so has by His providence regulated and
governed all created things. For it must be believed, (as
Tertullian suggests, and as the universal Church of Christ
agrees in holding,) that, “not merely the creation’ of the
world was wrought by’ the Son, but those things also which
God has transacted since the creation.” Hence, the Apostle
Paul also, 1 Cor. x. 9, teaches explicitly enough, that it was
Christ, who presided over and went before the children of
Israel in the wilderness, after they were led forth from the
house of bondage in Egypt, leading them as it were by the
hand into the promised land. See by all means what I have
advanced at length on this subject, in the Defence of the
Nicene Creed, i. 1, almost throughout, but especially §$ 12,
14, 15, 16.
But thus these heretical and troublesome persons still go
on to argue: If the author of the Epistle had cited this
* [Verses 13, 15, 16, 19 and 22.)
OHAP. V.
§ 8.
1 opera.
2 per.
[120]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
Δ per.
2 strictim.
3 διαιεριτι»
κῶς.
[121]
102 Why the writer of the Epistle dwells on the creation of
testimony of the Psalmist for the purpose of proving, that
the world was created by’ the Son of God, he would alto-
gether have wandered from his object and design ; for what he
proposed was, to set forth only that preeminence of the Son,
which accrued to Him when now already placed at the right
hand of the Majesty of God, verse 4, to preeminence of
which kind the creation of the world no way appertains.
We, however, on the contrary, from the fact of the author’s
citing that passage of the Psalmist concerning the creation
of all things, and expressly affirming that it was addressed to
the Son, regard it as certain, that his purpose was not to
set forth that preeminence only of the Son, which then at
length accrued to Him after His exaltation to the right hand
of God the Father. Besides, in the very beginning of the
chapter the author had stated, briefly’, three particulars
respecting our Saviour, that He is the Son of God, and that
in a distinctive sense*, that through Him the worlds were
made, and lastly, that He was then appointed or declared to
be the heir of all things, when He was in His ftesh exalted to
the highest heaven, and there set at the right hand of God
the Father. That on these several grounds, our Lord very far
excels not only the prophets of God, as was before intimated,
[see Heb. i. 1,| but the very angels also, the author goes on
to shew, by adducing testimonies from Holy Scripture; of
which that which we are now considering, most clearly
belongs to the second. Therefore the word γενόμενος, in
verse 4, ought to be rendered “being” [qué est]; or ex-
plained, with Chrysostom and Theophylact, by “ having
been shewn” or “declared.” Lastly, these sophists object ;
Why, if the author of the Epistle had really believed and
supposed it certain, that all created beings were formed by
the Son of God, should he be at so much pains to draw out
a comparison between Him and the angels? Could it bea
matter of doubt to any one, whether the Creator was more
excellent than the creatures? To no one certainly, say L
But yet at the time when this Epistle to the Hebrews was
written, there were very many, that is, the Cerinthians and
others, who attributed the creation of the world, at least of
this visible world, to angels; regarding our Saviour in the
meanwhile as a mere creature, and even as nothing more
the world by the Son, and His superiority to the Angels. 108
than a man, who had no existence before [ His birth of] Mary,
and therefore was far far* inferior to the angels. Moreover,
those carnal Jews, who had not as yet accepted the doctrine
of the Gospel,—the brethren of those to whom the author
wrote the Epistle,—believed that Christ, or the Messiah, pro-
mised by the prophets, would be nothing more than man;
whilst, with respect to the angels, most of their teachers
supposed that they had been fellow-workers’? with God in the
creation of the lower world, and that it was to them that God
addressed the words, “ Let us make man,” &c. Gen. 1. 26%.
In opposition to all these, it was surely no useless labour on
the part of the sacred writer, to explain the preeminence and
superiority of Christ the Son of God over the angels; in
opposition to their tenets he very appositely teaches, that the
creation of all things was entirely the work of the most high
God, through His Son, who Himself also is God; and that
it did not in any degree belong to the angels; inasmuch as
they themselves also are creatures, ministering to God the
Creator of all things, as he says afterwards in verse 14.
I return at last to the words of the writer, in verse 2.
“(οὔ hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son,
whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also
He made the worlds.” It is certainly clear enough, that the
sacred writer in these words meant to show that congruity
of the divine economy, whereby provision was made, that
OHAP. Υ.
1 longe
ongi
2 curep yous.
41
[122]
the world should in the fulness of time be restored by the .
same Son, by whom in the beginning it had been created ;
that He, who had been in the old creation Lord, should also
be Heir and Lord in the new. In the same way does the
Apostle Paul also manifestly argue in the first chapter of his
Epistle to the Colossians; in verses 15, 16, 17, he calls the
Son of God, “the first-born of every creature,” (begotten,
that is, of God the Father before all created beings,) and
declares Him to be the Creator of all things; (for if any one
denies that the creation, properly so called, is there referred
to, he might with equal boldness deny, that that creation
is anywhere described in the Holy Scriptures, and go on to
contend that even the first chapter of Genesis must be alle-
* See P. Fagius in loc., and Philo Six Days; also Justin’s Dialogue with
Judeeus’ treatise On the Work of the Trypho, p. 285. [§ 62. p. 159.]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
1 concele-
brat.
modos.
[128]
104 3. Context of Creed excludes other than Divine Sonship ;
gorically explained ;) and then, im verse 18, he designates’
Him as “the head of the body, the Church, and the be-
ginning, the first-born from the dead,” (κεφαλὴν Tod σώματος
τῆς ἐκκλησίας, καὶ ἀρχὴν, πρωτότοκον ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν ;) then
in the same place-he immediately adds the following reason,
“that in all things He might have the preeminence,” (wa
γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων ;) in other words, that He
might in every way be preeminent above all, as well by
reason of the renewal of all things, as of their creation ; as
being both the beginning of the world, and also the head of
the Church,
Thus having weighed and examined all the four senses’ in
which, as Episcopius contends, Christ, as man, is called in
the Scriptures, preeminently, the Son of God, we have at
length made it manifest, that in none of those senses can
Christ be properly called the one only or “ only-begotten ”
Son of God. Moreover, we have shewn, ev abundanti, that
in those passages of Scripture, where those senses seem to be
contained, there is intimated clearly enough a far different
and more excellent Sonship of our Saviour, even that whereby
He existed with God the Father, as His only Son, before He
became man, and even before the creation of all things.
9. I proceed to our third argument, derived from the
arrangement and context of the creed itself. It is evident,
that the four senses of the Sonship of Jesus Christ, which
Episcopius mentions, are all expressed in other places of the
Creed, so that they are by no means signified in those words,
‘the only-begotten Son of God,” unless we admit a tautology
in so short a formula. The second sense, touching the mis-
sion or anointing of our Saviour to His function or office,
was implied in the word “ Christ,” (the Anointed,) imme-
diately before. The other three senses, those, namely, which
are derived from His conception by the Holy Ghost, His
resurrection from the dead, and, lastly, His exaltation to the
right hand of God the Father, are all expressed afterwards in
distinct articles. Therefore, when in the creed we confess”
Jesus Christ to be “ the only-begotten Son of God,” we cer-
tainly intimate that quite another Sonship belongs to Him,
such as cannot be referred to any of these senses, even a
divine one.
what follows expresses what the Son did as Man. 105
The author of the Jrenicum, indeed, contends with his cmap. y.
usual vehemence, that the words of the creed, which follow Ri. 0
the clause, “And in Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son,” _
are merely a description of the Son of God, “added for the
purpose of making it appear, what kind of Son of God is here
understood; He, that is, who was born of the Virgin Mary,
was crucified, died, was raised again, was taken up into
heaven, is sitting at the right hand of God, and will come
to judge the quick and the dead; all which things indicate a
peculiar and only-begotten and proper Son of God.” Here,
however, the heretic is altogether mistaken. For, Ist, no
man in his sober senses will easily believe that in so concisea [124]
creed all the clauses, which follow after the confession of the
only-begotten Son of God, and relate to Him, were added
only by way of explanation, that it might appear what sort of
Son of God He is; for they comprise half at least of the
creed. 2dly. Most of those subsequent clauses no way
refer to the setting forth of the Sonship of Jesus Christ ;
these, I mean, ‘“‘ He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was cru-
cified, dead and buried ; He descended into hell.”” Therefore,
- 8Sdly, we must certainly lay down, that what follows in the
creed after the profession of our faith in the only-begotten
Son of God, was not added for the mere purpose of a more
clear understanding what kind of Son of God that is, in
whom we have to believe; but, that it might be shewn
further what that Son of God did and suffered for us; in
other words, what the dispensation is, which He undertook
and endured for our salvation; namely, that He was con-
ceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, and
accordingly ὁ beg made man, suffered under Pontius Pilate, ! adeoque.
&c. This we learn from Ruffinus, who very well knew the
meaning of the Church of Rome in using this creed: in his
Exposition of the Creed these words occur’; “The order
proposed in the creed having set forth. the ineffable mystery
of the Son’s nativity of the Father, now descends to His
condescension and the dispensation of man’s salvation, and
now says of Him, whom it had before called the only Son 45
» Tren. p, 70. salutis dignationem dispensationem-
* Posteaquam propositus ordo fidei que descendit; et hunc, quem supra
ineffabile sacramentum Filii de Patre dixit unicum Filium Dei et Dominum
nativitatis exposuit, nunc ad humane nostrum, nunc dicit, gui natus est de
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 ex.
2 de.
dignati-
onis.
* sermo-
nem.
[125]
> ἐκυοφο-
ρήθη.
106 Distinction of the Theology and Dispensation, in the Creed ;
of God and our Lord, that ‘He was born of! the Virgin
Mary by’ the Holy Ghost.’ This latter nativity among men
is that of His dispensation, the former, of His divine sub-
stance: the one, of voluntary condescension’; the other, of
nature.” That this exposition of Ruffinus may be better
understood, it should be known, that every discourse *
respecting Christ was by the ancient doctors of the Church
divided into two parts in all, namely, “the Theology and the
Economy [or Dispensation] ” (τὴν θεολογίαν καὶ τὴν oiKovo-
μίαν ὃ. By “the Theology” they meant, whatsoever per-
tained to our Saviour’s divinity; ὁ. 6. that He is the Son of
God, begotten of God the Father before all worlds, and so is
God; and that the worlds were made by Him. “ The Dis-
pensation” was the name they gave to His incarnation, and
to whatsoever He did here on earth, in the flesh which He
assumed, to procure the salvation of the human race. There-
fore, in the Creed, called the Apostles’ Creed, the words in
which we profess our faith in Christ, as the only-begotten
Son of God, belong to the Theology; whereas those which
follow, relating to His, conception by the Holy Ghost, His
birth of the Virgin, His passion, &c., must be referred
entirely to the Dispensation®. In this way did the bishops
and the doctors of the Catholic Church, from the very time
of the Apostles, invariably understand for themselves the
rule of faith touching Christ our Lord, and expound it to
others. Thus Ignatius, in his genuine Epistle to the Ephe-
sians, says‘; “ For our God Jesus Christ was conceived * by
Mary according to the dispensation of God, of the seed of
David, and of the Holy Ghost: who was born and was bap-
tized,” &c. In the judgment of Ignatius, therefore, the
conception of the Virgin Mary, nativity, &c., do not pertain
to a description of the Son of God, but to that dispensa-
tion, which the Son of God, who is also Himself God, under-
took for the sake of our salvation.
Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine.
Heec jam inter homines dispensationis
nativitas est, illa divinse substantiz ;
hee dignationis est, illa nature.—
[§ 8. p. cev.]
4 See the notes of Valesius, on Eu-
sebius, Eccl. Hist. pp. 4, 5.
© Compare Galatians iv. 4. with
In like manner Justin,
Ephesians i. 10.
£ ὃ γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς
ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν
Θεοῦ, ἐκ σπέρματος μὲν Δαβὶδ, πνεύμα-
τος δὲ ἁγίου: ὃς ἐγεννήθη καὶ ἐβαπτί-
σθη, .7.A.—Edit. Voss. p. 27. [ὃ 18.
pp. 15, 16.]
illustrated from SS. Ignatius, Justin M., and Ireneus. 107
in the passage from his Dialogue with Trypho, which we omar. v.
have already, on another occasion, quoted once or twice, μι...
describes the faith concerning Christ, which is required for. [126]
salvation of all who live under the Gospel, as that whereby ~
they acknowledge’ “ Christ, as the Son of God, who existed
before the morning star and the moon, and being incarnate
endured to be born of’ the Virgin, that by this dispensa-* διά.
tion the serpent, which from the first was an evil-doer, and
the angels which were like him, might be destroyed,” &c.
Here also His nativity of the Virgin is expressly referred to
the dispensation, which the Son of God, who existed before
the worlds, undertook for our sakes. Irenzus in like manner,
book i. 2, in giving the rule of faith as it was received through
all the Churches, (of which we have already" recited the
greatest part,) after the profession of faith in the Only-
begotten Son of God, that is, after the Theology, imme-
diately adds, that the Holy Ghost by the prophets had fore-
told “ the dispensations, and the advents, and the nativity of
the Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the
dead, and the receiving up in the flesh* into heaven of our ? ἔνσαρκον
beloved Lord Jesus Christ.” Here the articles of the Creea ΑΨ»,
respecting our Saviour’s coming into this world, that is, respect-
ing His nativity of the Virgin, His passion, and whatsoever
else He did here on earth until His ascension into heaven,
are expressly referred by him to “the dispensations,” which
the only-begotten Son of God sustained for our salvation.
The same [writer], in book iv. 62‘, beautifully describes the
faith of the spiritual man, ὁ. 6. of the really Catholic Christian,
respecting the most holy Trinity, in the following words; “To [127]
him all things are consistent and sure*: he has a faith per- * συνέστη-
fectly sound in one God Almighty, of whom 4 are all things ; pi aie
a firm persuasion in the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, ἐμὰ
through whom ἢ are all things, and in “ His dispensations,” © av οὗ,
whereby the Son of God was made man; likewise in the
& P. 264. [8 4δ. p.141.] See above, book] iv. 5. [p. 72.]
ii. 14. [p. 46.] i πάντα αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν eis ἕνα
h σὰς οἰκονομίας, καὶ τὰς ἐλεύσεις, Θεὸν παντοκράτορα, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα,
καὶ τὴν ἐκ παρθένου γέννησιν, καὶ τὸ πίστις ὁλόκληρος᾽ καὶ εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ
πάθος, καὶ τὴν ἔγερσιν ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ Θεοῦ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν,
τὴν ἔνσαρκον εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἀνάληψιν δὲ οὗ τὰ πάντα, καὶ τὰς οἰκονομίας αὐτοῦ,
τοῦ ἠγαπημένου Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ Ku- δι᾽ ὧν ἄνθρωπος ἐγένετο ὁ vids τοῦ Θεοῦ,
ρίου ἡμῶν. ---ἰ 6. 10. p. 48, quoted above, πεισμονὴ BeBala’ καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ
JUDGMENT
OF THE
. CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
——_—_—_—
1 τὸ oxnve-
βατοῦν.
2 per.’
108 4. Whole Church held that “ Only Son” implied Divine
Spirit of God, who sets forth’ amongst men in every generation,
the dispensations both of the Father and the Son, as the
Father wills.” Here again the holy man shews, that in the
Church’s rule of faith there is contained a twofold know-
ledge and belief of Christians concerning Christ ; one which
respects His divine Person, whereby, that is, they acknow-
ledge that He is the Son of God, by* whom all things were
made; the other relating to His dispensations, by which
they confess, that that Son of God was made man, &c.
‘Now which of these two expositions of the Creed is to
be preferred,— that of these apostolic men and martyrs,
(with whom agree all the subsequent Catholic fathers,
without a single exception,) or that of the author: of the
Irenicum, a dogmatist of yesterday,—it will not be difficult to
determine.
46
[128]
3 proprie.
10. There remains our fourth and last argument, which
we are to derive from the sense and meaning of the pri-
mitive Church. In the first three centuries, (for no one
doubts about the following ages,) the title of “ the only-
begotten,” or “only” Son of God, as applied to Christ,
is by the unvarying and continuous usage of all the Ca-
tholic doctors, plainly determined to have this sense, viz.
to signify His divine generation of God the Father Himself
before all worlds. The statement of Tertullian*, respecting
the Son of God, is the consenting voice of them all; “ He is
the first-begotten, as begotten before all things; and the
only-begotten, as alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar
to Himself*, out of the womb of His heart.” For they all
acknowledged no other only-begotten Son of God, than
Him who was begotten of the very essence of God the
Father, that is, the Logos and Word [begotten] of His
eternal mind; this point we have most fully demonstrated
in our Defence of the Nicene Creed, Book ii. throughout.
Indeed, so certain and manifest is this unanimity, that
Petavius, in speaking of those Ante-nicene writers, who ap-
pear to have denied the eternity of the only-begotten Son of
God, (but only appear to have done so, as we have clearly
Θεοῦ, τὸ τὰς οἰκονομίας Πατρός. τε καὶ k Primogenitus, ut ante omnia ge-
υἱοῦ σκηνοβατοῦν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην γενεὰν nitus; et unigenitus, ut solus ex Deo
ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, καθὼς βούλεται ὁ Πα- genitus, proprie de vulva cordis ipsius.
τήρ.---ἰ ο. 88, 7. p. 272.} —Against Praxeas, 6. 7. [p. 503.]
Generation. Creeds to be understood in the Church’s sense. 109
shewn in the work just mentioned!) whilst in other respects crv. v.
he is a severe censor of them, is obliged to allow™, that Be
they asserted the Son to be of the substance, or nature, of
the Father.” What then do we want more? Is not that
peculiar mode of the Sonship of Jesus Christ, of which ~
Episcopius speaks, expressed plainly enough by the Roman
Church in this creed, by the use of those words, whereby (as
has been allowed on all hands’) that mode [of Sonship] was * apud |
signified, in that age and in that same Church? What Marta
matters it, if any heretic of yesterday contends that the +
words are capable of another explanation? The creeds of the
Church must surely be explained by the sense of the Church
itself, and not by the inventions of heretics. If this latter
course were to prevail, eternal God?! how soon would it? Immorta-
come to pass, that not one of all the articles of our faith would paren
be left sound and entire! He holds not the Church’s creeds,
who understands them otherwise than the Church does. For
it has been well remarked on this subject by the author of a
work, On Right Profession *, ascribed to Justin, at the very * De Recta
beginning"; “It is not merely the ascribing of glory to the Gn
Father and the Son, which procures salvation for us, but the
sound confession of the Trinity affords the enjoyment of
those good things, which are laid up for the godly; since one
shall hear even the heterodox hymning the Father and the
Son, but not offermg them worship according to a right un-
derstanding.” Cyprian also speaks to this point, [in writing]
to Jubaianus, touching the baptism of heretics®, on those
words of Christ, “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ;”
“ He intimates the Trinity, in the mystery of which* the * cujussa-
- nations were to be baptized. But does Marcion® hold this Mica is
Trinity? Does he acknowledge the same Father, the Creator, ΜΝ
as we do? Does he know the same Son, Christ, born of the s Numquid
Virgin Mary, who is the Word made flesh? &c. Far different Marcion.
1 Def. Fid. Nic. book iii.
[129]
™ De Trinitate, i. 5. 7.
π οὐ yap ἁπλῶς ἣ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα
καὶ τὸν υἱὸν δοξολογία τὴν σωτηρίαν
ἡμῖν πορίζει, ἀλλ᾽ ἣ ὑγιὴς τῆς τριάδος
ὁμολογία τῶν ἀποκειμένων τοῖς εὑσεβέ-
σιν ἀγαθῶν τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν δωρεῖται"
ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν ἑτεροφρόνων ἀκούσεταί τις
τὸν Πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἀνυμνούντων,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐ κατ᾽ ὀρθὴν ἔννοιαν τὸ σέβας
προσαγόντων.---[ Ὁ. 420.]
ο Insinuat Trinitatem, cujus sacra-
mento gentes baptizarentur. Num-
quid hane Trinitatem Marcion tenet?
numquid eundem asserit, quem et
nos, Patrem Creatorem? numquid
eundem novit Filium Christum, de
Maria Virgine natum, qui Sermo caro
110 «“Ποιϊάϊηρ the mere words of the Creed, insufficient.
sopement 18 the faith [not only] of Marcion, but also of all other
cannon Heretics ; indeed there is nothing among them but faithless-
cnurcH. ness and blasphemy and contention, the enemy of holiness
and truth.”
1redargua- In like manner let us also refute! Episcopius and others,
ii who would have us regard the Arians and the Socinians as
brothers, because, forsooth, they receive the common creed
of the Church, and profess with ourselves faith in Christ, as
*Numquid. the only-begotten Son of God. For do they?’ believe in the
same only-begotten Son of God, in whom both we Catholics
believe at the present day, and the Catholic Church in all
preceding ages has believed? Far different surely is their
* perfidia. faith; nay, among them there is nothing but faithlessness*.
The Church believes, and always has believed, in the only-
begotten Son of God, as having been begotten of God the
[130] Father Himself before all worlds, and so Himself God; in
which sense neither of these heresies sincerely acknowledges
the Son of God. For, according to the Arians, (if you strip
‘mango- their dogma of its specious disguise *,) the only-begotten Son
mum of God is in reality a creature made out of nothing, although
more excellent than all other creatures and produced before
them. In the view of the Socinians He is a mere man, who
existed not before His birth of the Virgin. Both, therefore,
whilst, as far as words go, they profess the creed of the
Church, respecting the only-begotten Son of God, do yet
hold and cherish in their heart what is altogether heretical and
blasphemous. Moreover, from what we have stated so much
at length concerning the Apostles’ Creed, we may plainly see
the emptiness and folly, or rather the extreme shamelessness,
of the Racovian Catechist, when he boasts, that, touching
the person of Christ ?, he and his party “believe only this,
that He is by nature true man, such as He is witnessed to
be in the confession of faith which is commonly called the
Apostles’ Creed, and which all Christians embrace along with
themselves.”
factus sit? &c. Longe alia est apud tio, sanctitatis et veritatis inimica.”
Marcionem, sed et apud cexeteros here- —([p. 131.]
ticos fides ; imo nihil est apud ipsos P Cat. Rac. de Cognit. Christi, ¢. 1.
nisi perfidia et blasphemia et conten-
CHAPTER VI. 47
OF THE ANCIENT OREED OF THE EAST.
1. WE are come at length to our fourth and last proposi-
tion, which is as follows ;
In the creed or rule of faith, which was in use, in the most
ancient Churches of the East, before the Council of Nice,
that special mode of the Sonship of Jesus Christ, by which,
that is, He was in being in His higher nature before all
worlds, begotten of God the Father Himself, and therefore
God, was stated and declared in express terms.
2. It cannot be doubted that the Eastern Churches had [131]
their own creed, or rather creeds, before the Nicene Council ;
creeds, I mean, more full and explicit than that first and
most ancient one which Episcopius mentions, containing only
the words, “I believe in God the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost.” For that the Roman and the other Churches
of the West had a creed of their own, previous to the Council
of Nice, larger than that simple confession of the Trinity, is
clear enough, not only from Ruffinus and Augustine, but
also from Tertullian and Cyprian, who wrote in the third
century. With respect, indeed, to the Church of Rome,
which the other Churches of the West generally followed,
the testimony of Vigilius is express, as Vossius has cited it
from his fourth book concerning Eutyches, where he thus
writes*; “The whole body of believers profess that they
believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ,
His only Son, our Lord. At this article’ he cavils on this 1 capitulo.
account: Why said it not, ‘In one God the Father, and
in one Jesus Christ His Son,’ according to the decree of
the Council of Nice? But at Rome, even before the assem-
* Fidelium universitas profitetur capitulo ob id iste calumniatur: Cur
eredere se in Deum Patrem omnipo- non dixerit, in unum Deum Patrem
tentem, et in Jesum Christum Filium et in unum Jesum Christum Filium
ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum, Huic ejus, juxta Niceeni decretum concilii ?
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
ita.
2 nec pre-
judicantur.
[132]
* Jatiorem.
4 in sacro
lavacro.
112 The Nicene Council did not mean to frame a new Creed,
bling of the Nicene Synod, from the time of the Apostles
until now, and in the time of Ccelestine too of blessed
memory, to whom he bore witness as [being] of a right
faith, the creed is delivered to the faithful in those terms’;
and words are not objected to*, when the sense remains
unimpaired.” Now, if the Roman and the Western Churches
had such a creed before the Council of Nice, why not the
Eastern’ Churches equally? Nay, to these Churches a creed
of that kind was much more necessary than to the Church
of Rome, for the reason which I have already adduced
from Ruffinus; inasmuch, that is, as in the first ages they
were miserably harassed by heretics, who gave no trouble to
the Church of Rome. Moreover, Greek writers, before the
Nicene Council, constantly in their writings mention τὸν
κανόνα τῆς πίστεως (“the canon or rule of faith””). Indeed,
Trenzus, who was an Asiatic, and undoubtedly must be classed
among Greek writers, gives that rule at length in book i.
chap. 2, as has been shewn above, [page 72.] Eusebius of
Ceesarea likewise, at the Council of Nice, before the fathers
had framed their creed, recited a fuller*® confession of faith,
which he had been taught when yet a catechumen, and had
professed in holy baptism‘, as he testifies himself in his
Epistle to the people of Czesarea, in Socrates, Eccl. Hist. 1, 8.
_ 8. Further, we must certainly hold that the Churches of
the East did not by any means throw aside their own ancient
creeds after the publication of the Nicene Creed. For we see
that the Church of Rome, after the Council of Nice, still
retained its ancient creed. And who can doubt that the
Eastern Churches did the same? . Undoubtedly, the decrees
- of the Nicene Council, as being ecumenical, pertained equally
5 par fuerit
ratio.
to all Churches of Christ; so that in this particular the case
of the Eastern Church and the Churches of the West was
the same*®. But the Nicene fathers, as I think, never intended
either to construct a new creed simply, or to transmit the
ancient creed of the East entire with some addition of their
own; but only to assert, in opposition to the Arians, that
Sed Rome, et antequam Niceena syn- bus symbolum traditur; nec preejudi-
odus conveniret, a temporibus apo- cantur verba, ubi sensus incolumis
stolorum usque ad nune, et sub beate permanet.—[Vigil. Taps. cont. Hut.
memorize Ccelestino, cui iste recte lib. iv. c. 1. p. 34.]
fidei testimonium reddidit, ita fideli-
or to supersede those which were used before. 113
sense of the article of the ancient creed respecting the Son omar. vn
of God which was the true sense, and received in the Church ὃ *
from the very beginning. They do, indeed, prefix to their
own confession respecting the Son of.God the article of the
ancient creed respecting God the Father, (although. not
entire,) and they add to it something concerning faith in
the Holy Ghost. But this they did, because they thought
that the faith respecting the Son of God could not have been
set forth suitably or becomingly without a profession of faith
in God the Father also, and in the Holy Ghost. Accordingly,
after merely mentioning the Holy Ghost, they immediately
return to the article of the Son, on the assertion of which [133] »
they were mainly’ intent, denouncing an anathema on those 1 impri-
who denied His very and eternal Godhead; “As for those mer
who say, There was a time when He was not,” &c. (τοὺς δὲ
λέγοντας, ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, κι.) But after these words of
the Nicene Creed, “ And in the Holy Ghost,’ much is
omitted, which was contained in the rule of faith received in
the primitive Churches throughout the East, as I shall shew
hereafter by the strongest arguments. Meanwhile, this is
certain, that the Nicene fathers did not by any means intend
that their creed should obtain thenceforth in the admi-
nistration of baptism, (for even the very anathema’ with ? ἀναθεμα-
which it concludes is altogether inconsistent with that ἦς
object,) but left to the several Churches their own former -
creeds for that use. At any rate, if that had been the in-
tention of the holy Synod, the Roman and the Western
Churches, whose bishops formed an important part of it,
either did not understand its view, or despised its authority ;
which no man of sound mind could imagine. For Ruffinus,
in the Preface to his Exposition of the Aquileian Creed,
testifies expressly that in his own age, “ the ancient custom
was preserved at Rome, that such as were about to receive _
the grace of baptism repeated* in public, that is, in the ὅ redde-
audience of the faithful, the creed,’ the ancient Roman e
creed, of which he had been speaking in the preceding
context. And afterwards he says, that he had himself
“received” the ancient creed of the Church of Aquileia,
> Mos inibi servatur antiquuseos qui lice, id est, fidelium populo audiente,
gratiam baptismi suscepturi sunt, pub- symbolum redderent.—|[p. 179.)
BULL.—J. C. 6. I
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHUROH.
[134]
1 compc-
tentibus.
114 The Ante-Nicene Creeds of the Eastern Churches ;
(which in some points was different from that of Rome,) “ by
the grace of baptism” (per baptismi gratiam suscepisse) ; in
other words, he had professed the belief in that creed when
he came to be baptized.
4. Having made these prefatory remarks, I proceed to the
proof of our proposition, Of all Churches the most ancient
were the Churches of Palestine; and among these the
Church of Jerusalem was the first and oldest, inasmuch as
from it the doctrine of the Gospel first emanated, and thence
was derived and propagated to other regions of the world;
hence it is called “the mother of all the Churches ” (ἡ μητὴρ
ἁπασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν) by the Fathers of Constantinople, in
their Synodical Epistle, as given in Theodoret’s Eccl. Hist.
v. 9. And although this Church, from the first institution
of metropolitans, apparently, almost down to the Council of
Chalcedon, was subject to Ceesarea as the metropolitan see,
yet was it always held in great esteem by all other Churches,
for the reason which I have mentioned. Now what the
character of the ancient creed of this Church of Jerusalem
was, and what it delivered to be believed respecting the
Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, cannot. be ascertained from
any one more certainly than from Cyril, who was appointed
Bishop of this Church about the year of Christ 350. While
he was yet a catechist, he expounded the creed of the Church
of Jerusalem by portions to the candidates for baptism ’ in
the sixth and following of his Catechetical Lectures. The
portions put together make up the following confession of
faith ὁ :—
“Ἵ believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible: and
in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of the Father before all worlds, very God, by whom
© πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παν-
τοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆ»,
ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων" καὶ εἰς
ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ
Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς
γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων,
Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν, δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο"
σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα ἐκ παρ-
θένου καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου, σταυρωθέντα
καὶ ταφέντα" καὶ ἀναστάντα ex νεκρῶν
τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἷς τοὺς
οὐρανοὺς, καὶ καθίσαντα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ
Πατρός" καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι
ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς, οὗ τῆς βασιλείας
οὐκ ἔσται τέλος" καὶ eis ἕν ἅγιον πνεῦμα
τὸν παράκλητον, τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν τοῖς
προφήταις" εἰς ἕν βάπτισμα μετανοίας
εἷς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν" καὶ εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν
καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν" καὶ eis σαρκὸς
ἀνάστασιν" καὶ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
the Creed of Jerusalem ; as extant in St. Cyril. 115
all things were made: [who was] incarnate? and made man omar. v1.
of the Virgin and the Holy Ghost ; was crucified and buried ; _§?—>-_
and rose again from the dead the third day, and ascended
into heaven, and sat on the right hand of the Father: and
cometh in glory to judge the quick and the dead, of whose
kingdom there shall be no end: and in one Holy Ghost the
Comforter, who spake by the prophets: in one Baptism of
repentance for the remission of sins ; and in one holy Catholic
Church : and in the Resurrection of the flesh : and in the Life
everlasting.”
5. It is plain that this creed is not the Nicene Creed itself, [135]
and that it also wants the additional clauses of the Constan- 1
tinopolitan Creed concerning the Holy Ghost. This latter
circumstance cannot appear strange to any one, who remem-
bers, that Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures, in which this creed
is recited, were written many years before the Council of
Constantinople was held, (for it was not convened till A.D. 381.)
It follows therefore, that this is really the ancient creed of
the Church of Jerusalem. This is rendered quite clear even
by the circumstance, that Cyril formally * expounds it to the ' ex pro-
competentes or candidates for baptism; but, in the admini- me
stration of baptism, as has been already shewn, the Eastern
as well as the Western Churches retained their own ancient
creeds, even after the Council of Nice. Now, in this creed,
every one must see that the divine generation of the Son
from * God the Father before all worlds is declared in the
most express terms, in the words; “‘The only-begotten Son 49
of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, very God, [136]
by whom all things were made.” And I have no doubt that
it was to this creed of Jerusalem that Eusebius (as being a
native of Palestine, and Bishop of Czesarea in Palestine)
referred, when at the Council of Nice, in describing the con-
fession of faith which he had received both in catechising
and at holy baptism, he thus states the article respecting the
Son of God®; “ And in one Lord Jesus Christ, God of God,
the only-begotten Son, begotten of God the Father before all
worlds, by whom also all things were made.” For here we have
S
ex.
4 [σαρκωθέντα. Or, ἐν σαρκὶ mapa- Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, υἱὸν μονογενῆ, mpd πάντων
γενόμενον, “ who is come in the flesh.” τῶν αἰώνων é« τοῦ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς γεγεννη-
See Cat. xii. 13. —B.] μένον, 8° οὗ Kal ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα. ---
© καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον ᾿Ιἡσοῦν Χριστὸν, [Socrates, E. H. i. 8.]
I 2
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHUROH.
1 homo
catus.
2 a seipso
Deus.
3 reposue-
runt.
[187]
116 Shewn to be the Ante-Nicene Creed of Jerusalem ;
the very actual words of the creed of Jerusalem, except that,
instead of “ very God” (ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν), Eusebius substituted
“ God of God” (Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ). For with his usual caution *,
he thought that here, as almost everywhere else, he ought to
meet the Sabellians, by so asserting the true Divinity of the
Son, as at the same time to:preserve unimpaired to God the
Father that special prerogative, whereby He is Himself alone
αὐτόθεος, that is, God of Himself*, and by means of this
prerogative, to distinguish the Father from the Son. - And in
this the fathers at Nice themselves agreed, and accordingly in
their Confession concerning the Son of God inserted * these
very words, “ God of God” (Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ) ; only adding,
according to.the ancient creed, “ very God of very God”
(Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ) : and further unfolding the
same [truth] more fully, when they afterwards call the Son of
God, “of one substance with the Father” (ὁμοούσιον τῷ
Ilarpi), that is, not of any created or mutable essence, but
‘of the very same truly divine and unchangeable nature as
God the Father ; which was also always the ies of
; Eusebius *. ‘
6. There are, it is true, some iigbeicd men who contend
that these Catechetical Lectures are not the work of Cyril,
but of one John, who was either the predecessor or the suc-
cessor of Cyril in the see of Jerusalem. But if this were
allowed to be true, it would not make much against us.. For
whether it were Cyril, or a John of Jerusalem, who ‘wrote
the Catechetical Lectures, it is still certain, that the creed
set forth in them was really the creed which used to be
expounded to the candidates for baptism in the Church
of Jerusalem, and which accordingly was anciently received
in that Church. That these Lectures, however, are really
Cyril’s, has been proved plainly enough against these hyper-
critical censors by Vossius, in his treatise On the three Creeds,
Dissertation i. Thesis 518. At all events, Jerome, the con-
temporary of Cyril, expressly attributes these Catechetical
Lectures to Cyril, and states in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical
Writers that they were written by him while he was yet a young
f [See my Defence of the Nicene Second Dissertation in the Preface
Creed, iv. 1. 10. [ ᾿ δ69.1 to the edition of 1720, p. xciii. &¢,—
5 De Tribus pubail [See the B.]
contained the articles that follow “the Holy Ghost.’ 117
man; and Theodoret, not to mention other later authorities,
quotes a passage from them as Cyril’s. Vossius, however,
himself in the same place says, ‘‘ There is a consideration,
which may seem calculated to create a doubt, but. which has
not been touched upon by others; namely, the fact that we
find in this creed certain words, which seem to have been de-
rived from the Creed of Constantinople ; as those which follow
the clause, ‘and in the Holy Ghost;’ that is, ‘the Comforter,
who spake hy the prophets ; in one baptism of repentance for
the remission of sins,” &c. The learned author, as it seems,
‘supposed that these additional clauses were not a part of the
creed of the East before the Council of Constantinople ; led
to this view (as he informs us himself) by the fact, that the
Nicene fathers end their creed with the words, “ and in the
Holy Ghost.” But how utterly without force this reasoning
is, (although indeed the great Erasmus was the author of it,)
is sufficiently clear from what we have already said at the
commencement of this chapter ; and what remains to be said
will make it still clearer. Meanwhile, I shall prove by the
strongest arguments, that the words in the Creed of Jerusalem
which follow the clause, ‘and in the Holy Ghost,” were not
taken from the Creed of Constantinople, but were contained
in the most ancient creeds of the East, long before the
Council of Constantinople, and even before that of Nice.
7. (1.) It is certain that the creeds which the Churches of
the West used before the Council of Constantinople and even
before that of Nice, did not end with the words, “‘ and in the
Holy Ghost,” but that there were in them other articles of
faith subjoined. Now who that considers what we have before
observed respecting the Eastern origin of almost all heresies,
would readily suppose that the Western creeds were more
full than those of the East? And-that there were some heads
of Christian doctrine subjoined to the article on the Holy
Ghost in the ancient creeds of the Western Churches, is easy
of proof. For Cyprian, in his Epistle to Magnus, has these
words respecting the creed into which the Novatians of his
time, agreeing herein with the Catholics, baptized»; “ When
they say, Dost thou believe the remission of sins, and the life
+ Cum dicunt, Credis remissionem sanctam ecclesiam? mentiuntur in
peccatorum et vitam sternam per interrogatione, quando non habeant
CHAP. VI.
re
[138]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 bapti-
zando,
[189]
50
2 tingue-
ret.
118 These articles were part of the ancient African Creed ;
everlasting by the holy Church? they lie in their question,
for they have not the Church.”” Here you have three articles
expressed in the ancient African Creed, viz. of the Church,
of Remission of sins, and of the Life everlasting. Moreover,
Tertullian expressly places the article concerning the Church
in that confession of faith which was necessary to be made
by every candidate for baptism’: see his treatise On Baptism,
chap. Θ᾽; “ But since both the attesting of faith and the
promise of salvation is pledged under three,” (that is, under
the three Divine Persons, God the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost,) “there is besides mention necessarily made of
the Church.” To the same efféct is that which Tertullian
also says, in chap. 11 of the same treatise, about Christ not
baptizing in His own person*; “ For unto whom should He
baptize*? Unto repentance? To what purpose then had He
a forerunner? Unto remission of sins? which He gave by a
word! Unto Himself? whom in humility He hid! Unto
the Holy Ghost? who had not as yet descended from the
Father! Unto the Church? which the Apostles had not
as yet set up!” Here the article of the remission of sins is
also indicated ; which I notice on account of Erasmus, who
thought that that article was added in opposition to Novatus 4,
In the time of Tertullian, however, Novatus had not yet
appeared ; since he was contemporary with Novatian, and as-
sisted him in the propagation of his schism, and consequently
did not disturb the Church until the age of Cyprian; whence
it happened, that by some persons, especially by Greeks, No-
vatus and Novatian were taken to be the same heresiarch”™;
though Cyprian attests the contrary, for at the beginning of
his eighth Epistle to Cornelius he writes thus about them?;
** You have acted with diligence and affection, dearest brother,
in speedily despatching to us Nicephorus the acolyte, both to
ecclesiam,—Lib. i. Ep. 6. [Ep. Ixxvi.
p. 164.1 See also lib. i. Ep. 12. ed.
Erasmi. [Ep. lxx. p. 125.]
i Cum autem sub tribus et testatio
fidei et sponsio salutis pignerentur,
necessario adjicitur ecclesie mentio,
—[p. 226.]
k In quem enim tingueret? in
peenitentiam? quo ergo illi preecur-
sorem? in peccatorum remissionem,
quam verbo dabat? in semetipsum,
quem humilitate celabat ? in Spiritum
5. qui nondum a Patre descenderat?
in ecclesiam, quam nondum apostoli
struxerant ?—[p. 228.
1 In his Reply to the Censure of the
Faculty of Theology at Paris, Tit. xi. .
m See the Notes of Valesius on
Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. vi. 45, p. 247,
[p. 318. See also Lardner’s Disserta-
tion on this point in opposition to-
Jackson.—B. }
n Et cum diligentia et dilectione
fecisti, frater carissime, festinato ad
nos mittendo Nicephorum acolythum
qui nobis et de confessoribus regressis
and of the Creed in the Apostolical Constitutions. 119
announce to us the glorious and glad tidings of the return of σπᾶν. vr.
the confessors, and most fully to prepare us against the new δες
and pernicious machinations of Novatian and Novatus to assail
the Church of Christ.” Besides, the Novatians baptized into
the same rule of faith as the Catholics; they also required of
their disciples a profession of the article of the remission of
sins, as is evident from Cyprian’s Epistle to Magnus, which
has been quoted above. For neither Novatus nor Novatian [140]
denied remission of sins absolutely’; but both asserted that eg ri
that remission did not extend to certain most grave? sins, , Seicia’s
committed after baptism, (such as the sin of those who had ma.
polluted themselves by either actually sacrificing or accepting
certificates*;) or, at least, that such sins were not to be ® libello.
remitted by the authority of the Church®*. This, however, * in foro
by the way; I return to my subject. ἘΞ
8. (2.) In the Apostolic Constitutions, vii. 41, there is given
a confession of faith, or a creed to be recited by those that
are about to be baptized, in which, after a profession of faith
“in God the Father unbegotten, and in His only-begotten
Son, begotten before the worlds, begotten, not made,” the
following words occur?; “1 am baptized also into the Holy
Ghost, that is, the Comforter, who wrought in all the saints
from the beginning of the world; and was afterwards sent to
the Apostles also from the Father, according to the promise
of our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, and after the Apo-
stles again to all that believe in* the holy Catholic Church;
into® the resurrection of the flesh, and into the forgiveness of ° «is.
sins, and into the kingdom of heaven, and into the life of the
world to come.” Here we have almost all the articles
which in the Creed of Jerusalem come after the words, “and
in the Holy Ghost ;” with this difference, that the author
explains the clause, “‘ who spake by the prophets,” by, “ who
wrought in all the saints from the beginning of the world ;”
and that he transposes the other articles. Only those words
5 ἐν.
[141]
ἁγίοις, ὕστερον δὲ ἀποσταλὲν καὶ τοῖς
ἀποστόλοις παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς, κατὰ τὴν
gloriosam leetitiam nuntiaret, et ad-
versus Novatiani et Novati novas et
perniciosas ad impugnandam Christi
ecclesiam machinas plenissime instru-
eret.—[ Ep. xlix. p. 63.
© See Socrates, Eccl. Hist. i. 10.
ΠΡ βαπτίζομαι καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ
ἅγιον, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστι τὸν παράκλητον, τὸ
ἐνεργῆσαν ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς am αἰῶνος
ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν κυρίου
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ μετὰ τοὺς ἀποστό-
λους δὲ πᾶσι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐν τῇ ὁγίᾳ
καθολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, εἰς σαρκὸς ἀνάστα-
σιν, καὶ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ εἰς
βασιλείαν οὐρανῶν, καὶ εἰς ζωὴν τοῦ
μέλλοντος aldvos.—[p. 383. ]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
-©ATHOLIO
CHURCH.
51
[142]
1 εἰς,
120 And of Arian Creeds, professing to agree with the Church ;
are wanting, “and in one baptism of repentance,” of which
we shall speak by-and-by. Of the Constitutions, however,
which are called Apostolical, the very eminent cardinal John:
Bona gives his opinion, which agrees with that of other very
learned men, in the following words!; “‘ Whatever be the
case as to the author of these Constitutions, it is now held
by all to be a certain and ascertained fact, that they are
more ancient than the Nicene Council’, and that they con-
tain the discipline by which the Eastern Church was governed
previous to Constantine the Great; as the very learned
Morinus informs us in part 11. of his work On Holy Orders,
p- 20. With whom Fronto agrees in his Notes prefixed to
‘the Roman Calendar, § 5.” However, with regard to the
creed which is contained in these Constitutions, their author
(or rather, their interpolator) gives, in his usual way, a para-
phrase of it, from beginning toend. Still, it is manifest that
the creed which the author had in view, was neither the
Nicene nor the Constantinopolitan, (since it is without the
additional clauses of both, of the former against Arius, and
of the latter against Macedonius ») and quite agrees with the
Confession of Jerusalem. :
9. (3.) A third argument may be drawn from the confes-
sion of faith which Arius and Euzoius presented to Constan-
tine in the name of themselves and their party, and by which
they wished to persuade the emperor, that they believed in
every point, “as the whole Catholic Church and the Scrip-
tures teach” (ὡς πᾶσα καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία, καὶ ai γραφαὶ δι:
δάσκουσιν *.) Now, in this confession, after the article on the
Holy Ghost, there follows‘; ‘and in’ the resurrection of the
flesh, and in the life of the world to come, and in the king-
dom of heaven, and in one holy Catholic Church of God.”
Here you have, though arranged in a different order, three
out of the four articles which are placed after the article on
the Holy Ghost in the creed of Jerusalem. And as this
confession of faith was written many years before the Council
of Constantinople, it was impossible for the heretics to have
rehearsed their articles after the pattern of the Creed deli-
4 Rerum Liturgic. i. 8. 4, t Kal els σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν, καὶ εἷς
* See the Notes on the Defence of why τοῦ: μέλλοντος aidvos, καὶ eis Ba-
the Nic, Creed, ii. 3. 6. [p, 111.]— σιλείαν οὐρανῶν, καὶ εἰς μίαν καθολικὴν
Bowyer. ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Ocov,—[Ibid. ]
“5 In Socrates, Eccl. Hist. i, 26.
opposed to heresies which had ceased in the 4th Century. 121-
vered in that Council. It remains, therefore, that they had omar, vr. .
in view the ancient creed of the East, in which the same °°!"
articles occurred. In like manner, in the creed of the Synod
of Eastern Bishops, of the Arian party, at Sardica’, which 151 apud
contained in the fragments of Hilary, after a nlcinain Κα
faith in God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost
the Comforter’, the following words are subjoined ἃ ; *¢ We?” Paracle-
believe also in* the holy Church, in the remission of sins, in Fg with
the resurrection of the flesh, in the life everlasting.””. Where 2°
you have also the article on the remission of sins, which was
omitted in the former confession.
10. (4.) Fourthly, to these arguments, which are in them-
selves sufficiently clear, I further add this most evident proof.
The clauses in the Creed of Jerusalem, which follow the
words, “and in the Holy Ghost,” are manifestly directed
against certain heresies, which greatly disturbed the Church
of Christ, particularly in the East, in the second century ;
but which were laid to rest at the time of the Council of
Constantinople and long before; so that it is absurd to
lay down, that those clauses were added at that time to the
Eastern creed. The heresies I allude to are those of Simon,
Menander, Cerinthus and others, who are usually comprised
under the name of Gnostics; which, as Gregory Nazi- [143]
anzen, who flourished at the time of, and previous to, the
Council of Constantinople, attests, had now in his time
become extinct’. It remains for me then to prove, that
what follows in the Creed of Jerusalem after the mention of
the Holy Ghost, was levelled against the wild, or rather
monstrous, notions of the Gnostics. If in the explanation
of this subject I shall be somewhat prolix, I do not anticipate
that that circumstance will be either. unprofitable or unplea-
sant to a reader who is a lover of antiquity *. 4 φιλαρ-
11, I shall begin with the words immediately after the *“*
clause, τὸ Παράκλητον, τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, “the
Comforter, who spake by " the prophets.” The word “ Com- 5 per.
forter” (IlapaxAnros) in the Scriptures themselves is a well-
known designation of the Holy Ghost, and that of very wide
signification; inasmuch as it means both Teacher, and Com-
" Credimus et in sanctam eccle- Fragm. iii. p. 1133.]
siam, in remissionem peccatorum, in Y Orat. xxili. edit. Par. 1630. [Orat.
carnis resurrectionem, in vitam eter- xxy, 8, Ρ. 459 ]
nam. — [S. Hilarii, ex opere Hist,
122 “The Comforter, that spake by the Prophets,” directed
forter, and Advocate. This epithet indeed is not applied at
all to the Holy Ghost in the Creed of Constantinople; an
omission of which I shall state the reason a little below ; but
it occurs in the Clementine Creed, and also in the Arian
Creed of Sardica, as has been already shewn. It is however
quite probable, that this word was added in opposition to the
Gnostics. For most of those heretics maintained that the
Paraclete and the Holy Ghost were two different Mons.
See by all means Tertullian’s treatise Against Valentinus,
Pamelius’ edition, chap. viii. 23%, compared with chap. xi.
123*, and the scheme! which Pamelius prefixed to that
work ¥, But, not to insist on this, the following words, viz.
“‘who spake by the prophets,” are most manifestly directed
against the heresy of the Gnostics. For nearly all of them
taught, that the God who was the Creator of this visible
world, and was preached by the Law and the Prophets, was
different from the God who is manifested in the Gospel; and
[144] that the ancient prophets were not inspired by the Holy
* ἃ virtute Ghost, but by a power’ proceeding from that God of the
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHUROH.
1 schema.
peo world * (whom some of them did not hesitate openly to call
“sm ilo evil;) and that therefore their writings were to be held in no
Ge susque esteem ἡ, but to be clean rejected”. This heresy was no doubt
halenda, referred to by Ignatius, when in his Epistle to the Phila-
delphians he thus admonishes them*; “ And we love the
prophets; for they too delivered their messages with a view
to the gospel ” (τοὺς προφήτας δὲ ἀγαπῶμεν, Sia τὸ καὶ
αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατηγγελκέναι.) Thus the meaning
_ of Ignatius is rightly understood by his interpolator, when to
this passage he subjoins the following”; “The prophets and
the apostles received from God through Jesus Christ one
* #yeuo- and the same Holy Spirit, a good and directing *, and a true,
as teaching, right ® Spirit. For the God of the old and the new
testament is One; the Mediator between God and men is
κινήσεως. τοὺς προφήτας λελαληκέναι
φιλονεικοῦντες. This, I remark by the
way, shews that the Ebionites agreed
with the Gnostics.—B.]
8. Page 41, ed. Voss. [ὃ 5. p. 31.]
> of προφῆται καὶ of ἀπόστολοι ἕν καὶ
ν ΓΡ. 253.]
x [P. 255.1
y Compare Ireneeus himself in our
edition, p. 9, line 28, compared with
p. 18, line 13. [i. 1, 2. p. 7.]—Gnrasz.
. 2 {The Ebionites likewise, as Me-
thodius testifies, (Sympos. p. 113,)
“δα erred concerning the Spirit, con-
tentiously saying, that the prophets
spake of their own motion ".---περὶ τοῦ
πνεύματος ἐσφαλμένοι ἦσαν, ἐξ ἰδίας
τὸ αὐτὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ἀγαθὸν καὶ ἣγε-
μονικὸν, ἀληθές τε διδασκαλικὸν ἔλαβον
παρὰ Θεοῦ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, εὐθὲς
πνεῦμα" εἷς γὰρ 6 Θεὸς παλαιᾶς καὶ
καινῆς διαθήκης" εἷς ὃ μεσίτης Θεοῦ καὶ
against the Gnostic heresy about the Old Testament. 128
One ; both for the creation of things that are objects of mind omar. vr. |
and those of sense, and for the proper and suitable providence ae
over them: and the Paraclete also is One, who wrought in 9?
Moses, and the prophets, and the apostles.” And a little
afterwards ὃ; “ If any one confesses Christ Jesus to be Lord, ὁ
but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, alleging
that the Maker of heaven and. earth is not the Father of
Christ, such an one standeth not in the truth, as neither did [145]
his father the devil: and such an one is a disciple of Simon
Magus, but not of the Holy Ghost.” Similar statements
you may read throughout Irenzus, Tertullian, and other
ancient writers. :
12. It was against this blasphemy of the Gnostics, I am
most certainly convinced, that the words, “who spake by
the prophets,” or what was equivalent to them, were in-
serted even in the earliest creeds of the East. For Irenzus,
‘in book i. chap. 24, when stating the rule of faith already
received in his own time, has this on the article of the Holy
Ghost ; ““Who by the prophets preached the dispensations
of God” (τὸ διὰ τῶν προφητῶν κεκηρυχὸς τὰς οἰκονομίας τοῦ
Θεοῦ). In like manner in a summary of the ancient creed —
quoted in the Greek by Damascene, which Irenzeus gives in
book iv. chap. 62°, and which we have above transcribed in
full‘, the belief in the Holy Ghost is thus stated; “ And in
the Spirit of God, who sets forth amongst men in every
generation the dispensations of the Father and of the
Son, as the Father wills.’ In like manner, Athenagoras,
who was somewhat earlier than Ireneus, in his Legation
for the Christians, while stating the confession of all
Christians respecting the Triune God, thus expresses the
Catholic faith concerning the Holy Ghost *; “ And we say
also, that the Holy Ghost Himself, who wrought in them [146]
that spake prophetically, is an effluence’ of God.” He had ! ἀπόῤῥοιαν.
ἀνθρώπων, els τε δημιουργίαν νοητῶν nal Aos* καὶ ἔστιν ὁ τοιοῦτος Σίμωνος τοῦ
αἰσθητῶν, καὶ πρόνοιαν πρόσφορον καὶ μάγου, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τοῦ dylov πνεύματος
κατάλληλον" εἷς δὲ καὶ ὁ παράκλητος, μαθητής.---ἰ δ 6. p. 79.]
ὃ ἐνεργήσας ἐν Μωσῇ, καὶ προφήταις, 4 (Chap. x. p. 48.]
καὶ ἀποστόλοι5.---ἶρ. 78.] ¢ (Chap. xxxiii. 7. p. 272.]
© ἐάν τις snoryg Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν [5366 above, c. v. § 9. p. 108.7
κύριον, ἀρνῆται δὲ τὸν Θεὸν τοῦ νόμου 8 καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ἐνεργοῦν τοῖς ἐκφωνοῦσι
καὶ τῶν προφητῶν, οὐκ εἶναι λέγων τὸν προφητικῶς ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ἀπόῤῥοιαν
οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς ποιητὴν Πατέρα τοῦ a φαμὲν τοῦ Ocot.—p. 10. [8 10.
Χριστοῦ, 6 τοιοῦτος ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ οὐχ pp. 287.)
ἕστηκεν, ὡς καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ὁ διάβο-
124 Evidence thatit was ἃ part of the ancient Ante-NiceneCreeds.
supement Said a little before in the same passage"; ‘‘ And the pro-
camnorro Phetical Spirit also agrees with' what we say.” Before
cHurcH. these again, Justin, when expounding likewise the Christian
1guwdse. faith respecting the most glorious’ Trinity, to the Roman
= a Emperor, describes the third Person in the same way,
sima. Apology iii “ But Him, (that is, the Father,) and the Son,
who came forth from Him, .... and the prophetical Spirit,
we worship and adore, honouring Them in reason and in
truth.” Parallel to this is that which afterwards occurs in the
same Apology*; “And the prophetical Spirit we in reason
honour in the third place.” Again, in the same Apology, he
adds, speaking of the prophets of the Old Testament};
_ “Through whom the prophetical Spirit foretold the things
that should happen, before they came to pass.’”? And what
follows further in the same Apology, approaches very nearly to
the words of the creed of Jerusalem; where, in treating again
of the belief and confession of the Holy Trinity, into which
the Christians of his time used to be baptized, he expresses
what relates to the Third Person in these words™; -“ And in
the name of the Holy Ghost, who foretold through the pro-
phets all things pertaining to Jesus, is he who is illuminated®
washed.” Surely, but little judgment or, at any rate, little
candour can be attributed to him, who, after weighing so
many and so plain testimonies, can deny that the words, “ who
spake by the prophets” (τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν), ΟΥ̓
words equivalent to them, were contained in the description
of the Holy Ghost, in the most ancient creed of the Hast.
I have, indeed, often before now wondered, why the Fathers
of Constantinople, after these words about the Holy Ghost,
“The Lord, and the Giver of life, who proceedeth from’ the
Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and
glorified,’ should have added in their creed, “ who spake by
the prophets.” For to my mind, after such magnificent
things attributed to the Holy Spirit, that He is “ the Lord,
5. φωτιζό-
μενοϑ.
[147]
h συνάδει δὲ τῷ λόγῳ καὶ τὸ προφη-
τικὸν πνεῦμα.---[1014.]}
i ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνόν τε καὶ τὸν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ
υἱὸν ἐλθόντα, .... πνεῦμά τε τὸ προ-
φητικὸν σεβόμεθα καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν,
λόγῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ τιμῶντε-. --- p.. 56.
[Apol. i. 6. p. 47.]
kK Πνεῦμά τε προφητικὸν ἐν τρίτῃ
τάξει [ὅτι] μετὰ λόγου τιμῶμεν [ἀπο-
deltouer.|—p. 60, [8 13. p. 51.]
δι ὧν τὸ προφητικὸν πνεῦμα προ-
ἐκήρυξε τὰ γενήσεσθαι μέλλοντα, πρὶν
ἢ γενέσθαι.---Ὁ. 72. [ὃ 31. p. 62.]
™ καὶ ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματος πνεύματος ἁγίου,
ὃ διὰ τῶν προφητῶν προεκήρυξε τὰ
κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν πάντα, ὁ φωτιζόμενος
Aoverat.—p. 94. [ὃ 61. p. 80.]
The article“‘One Baptism,” &c. directed against the Gnostics. 125
and the Giver of life, proceeding from the Father, who with car. vr.
the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified,” Bcc.
this additional clause, ‘‘ who spake by the prophets,” seemed |
frigid. When, however, I ascertained that the ancient Eastern
creed had, “ the Comforter, who spake by the prophets” (τὸ
Παράκλητον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν), I came to this
conclusion, that the holy Synod, instead of “ the Com-
forter,”’ substituted those magnificent clauses, more clearly
to express the true divinity of the Holy Ghost in opposition
to Macedonius, and then subjoined, “who spake by the
prophets” (τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν), because this
followed in the ancient creed. But this by the way.
13. I proceed to the next article, “in one baptism of
repentance, unto’ the remission of sins” (eis ἕν βάπτισμα * or, “in.”
μετανοίας, eis ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν). In the published copies of
Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures, indeed, these words make two
distinct propositions; but they ought certainly to be joimed 53
together into one article, as is done in the Creed of Con-
stantinople, in this way; “I acknowledge one baptism unto
the remission of sins” (ὁμολογῶ év βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν
ἁμαρτιῶν) ; so that baptism be here stated to be the mean of
obtaining forgiveness, and forgiveness itself to be the end
of baptism. ‘Now that this article too was levelled against
the heresy of the Gnostics, I am most thoroughly persuaded.
For Ireneus (i. 18", near the beginning) states coneerning [148]
the Valentinians, that they were led by the wiles* of Satan ? presti-
‘to a denial of the baptism of our‘regeneration to God, and?”
to a rejection of the entire faith.’ They did not, however,
all maintain this impious tenet in the same manner. For
some of them nullified * the one only baptism of Christ. by ὃ evacua-
their distinction of a twofold baptism; while others rejected ΡῈ
all baptism whatsoever, which is performed with any external
ceremony. Of the former class of these heretics, Irenzus
thus speaks afterwards in the same chapter®; “For they
lay down that the baptism of Jesus, who was visible ὁ, was ¢ τοῦ φαι-
for the remission of sins; whilst the redemption of Christ, sag
who descended on Him‘, was for perfection: and that the ὁ τοῦ ἐν
αὐτῷ 9 κατελ-
" εἰς ἐξάρνησιν τοῦ βαπτίσματος τῆς μένου Ἰησοῦ ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτιῶν, τὴν δὲ θόντος.
εἰς Θεὸν ἀναγεννήσεως, καὶ πάσης τῆς ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ Χριστοῦ
πίστεως ἀπόθεσιν. —[chap. 21. Pp. 93.] κατελθόντος, εἰς τελείωσιν" καὶ τὸ μὲν
9 τὸ μὲν γὰρ βάπτισμα τοῦ pavo- ψυχικὸν, τὴν δὲ πνευματικὴν εἶναι ὑφῳ-
126 Gnostic errors opposed to the doctrine of Baptism.
sovament former is carnal, the latter spiritual; and that baptism was
THE ;
cstnouzy #nnounced by John unto repentance ; but that the redemp-
cuurcH. tion was brought in by Jesus unto perfection. And this is
that of which He said; ‘ And I have another baptism to be
1 πάν baptized with, and I by all means hasten unto it’.’” Of
ἐπείγομαι these Irenzeus says further in a subsequent passage of the
same chapter, that they celebrated the external baptism of
water in a different form and with different rites from those
which were in general use in the Catholic Church. Respect-
ing the latter sect of the Valentinians, Irenzeus speaks as
[149] follows, near the end of the chapter already cited ?; “ Others
3 παραιτη- again, repudiating’ all this, maintain, that the mystery * of
$i: νέᾳ, tHe ineffable and invisible power ought not to be performed
ment.” by means of creatures which are visible and corruptible;
nor that of things that are inconceivable and incorporeal by
means of things perceptible and corporeal: but that perfect
redemption is the very knowledge of the ineffable Majesty.”
Who does not now see, that this article in the creed of
Jerusalem, “ I believe in one baptism of repentance for the
remission of sins,” was a most suitable antidote against these
impious doctrines of the Gnostics? For by these words the
Catholics professed, that they believed, in the first place,
that baptism was necessary,—necessary, that is to say, both
4 necessi- because commanded‘, and also as a means’, at least ordi-
wert narily ; secondly, that the baptism of Christ was one only,
εἰ seepage even that which the Catholic Church observes ; lastly, that
that one baptism was the baptism of repentance and of
remission of sins; and that no one rises to such “ perfec-
tion®” in his life, as not to require remission of sins. It
was this article of the ancient Eastern creed, as I quite
think, that Irenzus had in view, when, in book i. chap. 24,
rehearsing the rule of faith, he observes, that in it is de-
livered as a matter to be believed, that eternal salvation
will be given, not only to those who have kept the command-
6 τελείωσιν.
loravra. καὶ τὸ μὲν βάπτισμα ὑπὸ
Ἰωάννου κατηγγέλθαι εἰς μετάνοιαν" τὴν
δὲ ἀπολύτρωσιν ὑπὸ Ἰησοῦ κεκομίσθαι
εἰς τελείωσιν. καὶ τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι περὶ οὗ
λέγει, Καὶ ἄλλο. βάπτισμα ἔχω βαπτισ-
θῆναι, καὶ πάνυ ἐπείγομαι εἰς αὐτό. ----
[[υ14, p. 94.]
P ἄλλοι δὲ ταῦτα πάντα παραιτησά-
μενοι φάσκουσι, μὴ δεῖν τὸ τῆς ἀρρήτου
καὶ ἀοράτου δυνάμεως μυστήριον δι᾽ opa-
τῶν καὶ φθαρτῶν ἐπιτελεῖσθαι κτισμά-
των, καὶ τῶν ἀνεννοήτων καὶ ἀσωμάτων
δ’ αἰσθητῶν καὶ σωματικῶν. εἶναι δὲ
τελείαν ἀπολύτρωσιν, αὐτὴν τὴν ἐπίγνω-
σιν τοῦ ἀρρήτου μεγέθου-.---ἰ[ὃ 4. p. 96.]
4 [Chap. x. pp. 48, 49.]
‘One Holy Catholic Church;” Catholie, a term of early use. 127
ments of our Lord from the beginning, but to those also who
have done it “through or after repentance"” (ἐκ μετανοίας),
that is, a universal repentance, whereby is effected a passage
from the state of sin and death into the state of justification
and salvation. See Luke xv. 7.
14, I now come to the article on the Church, expressed
in these words, “‘and in one holy Catholic Church” (καὶ εἰς
μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν). In this article, however,
in the opinion of some, the word Catholic, at least, was
added at a later period, in opposition, that is to say, to the
Novatians and other schismatical disturbers of the peace
of the Church in the third century: which was the opinion
of John Gerhard Vossius, as may be seen in his work On the
Three Creeds, Diss. i. Thesis 39. It is, however, certain
(though this great man does not seem to have observed it)
that the epithet Catholic was attached to the Church of
Christ even in the times that came next after the age of the
Apostles. For in the Epistle of the brethren of Smyrna re-
specting the martyrdom of St. Polycarp there is mention made
of the Catholic Church in the very salutation®; “ The Church
of God, which dwelleth at Smyrna, to that which dwelleth at
Philomelium, and to all the portions’ in every place of the
holy Catholic Church, the mercy, peace, and love of God the
Father and of our Lord Jesus Christ be multiplied.” In the
same epistle also these Smyrneans relate that Polycarp, when
at the point of death, mentioned in his prayers “ the whole
Catholic Church throughout the world” (πάσης τῆς κατὰ τὴν
οἰκουμένην καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας). Indeed, before Polycarp,
the same epithet had been expressly applied by Ignatius to
the Church of God in his Epistle to the Smyrneans‘; ὅπου
av ἢ Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία, that is,
““ Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Valesius, therefore, is right in saying"; ‘ This epithet seems
to have been applied to the Church in the first age following
that of the Apostles, when the heresies that arose in many
¥ [rots (μὲν) ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, τοῖς δὲ ἐκ
μετανοίας .--- Ibid. }
5. ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεου ἡ παροικοῦσα
Σμύρναν, τῇ παροικούσῃ ἐν Φιλομηλίῳ,
καὶ πάσαις ταῖς κατὰ πάντα τόπον τῆς
ἁγίας καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας παροϊκίαις,
ἔλεος, εἰρήνη, καὶ ἀγάπη Θευῦ Πατρὸς
καὶ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. πλη-
6uvGein. —See Eusebius, Eccl. Hist.
iv. 15.
* Page 6, edition of Vossius. [ὃ 8.
. 36.
d "In his Note on Eusebius, Eccl.
Hist. book vii. ο. 10. p. 256. [p. 333. ]
CHAP. VI. ©
§ 18, 14.
[160]
1 παροικίαις,
54:
[151]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 jactita-
rent.
? plerisque.
3 adulteri-
nam.
4 varie
dicte.
5 literis.
128 . The Gnostics all rejected “ the Holy Catholic Church.”
places aimed at subverting the true faith of Christ and the
tradition of the Apostles. For at that time, with a view of
distinguishing the true and genuine Church of Christ from
the bastard assemblies of the heretics, the name of Catholic
was given to the Church of the orthodox alone.” _ It is,
however, further to be observed, that. the Gnostics, who
disseminated their heresies chiefly in the next age after the
Apostolic, had nearly all come to such a height of presump-
tion and shamelessness, as habitually to boast’, that the
pure and unadulterated Gospel was taught in their assem-
blies only; that. they alone had discovered and possessed
the knowledge of God’s: mysteries and the true way of obtain-
ing salvation; whence they assumed the name of Gnostics;
whilst the doctrine which the Apostles had handed down,
and the Catholic Church had received and embraced, was in
most particulars’ false and spurious*. For concerning these
heretics Irenzeus, iii. 2, writes as follows*; ‘“‘ For when they
are refuted out of the Scriptures, they turn to accuse the
Scriptures themselves, as if they were not right nor of autho-
rity; and [allege] that they are capable of different senses*, and
that the truth cannot be discovered from them by such as are
ignorant of their tradition. For that the truth was delivered
not in writing®, but by word of mouth: for which reason Paul
also said, .‘ Howbeit, we speak wisdom among them that are
perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world. And this
wisdom each one of them avers to be that which he has found
out of himself; a fiction to wit; so that reasonably °, accord:
ing to their view, truth lies sometimes with Valentinus,
sometimes with Marcion, sometimes with Cerinthus, and
then again with Basilides. .... For every one of them, being
utterly perverted, feels no shame in preaching up himself
while he depraves the rule of truth. But when we challenge
x Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur,in hujus. Et hanc sapientiam unusquis-
accusationem convertuntur ipsarum
Scripturarum, quasi non recite habeant,
neque sint ex auctoritate, et quia varie
sint dicte, et quia non possit ex his
inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciant
traditionem. Non enim per literas
traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem ;
ob quam causam et Paulum dixisse,
Sapicntiam autem loquimur inter per-
JSectos ; sapientiam autem non mundi
que corum esse dicit, quam a semetipso
adinvenerit, «fictionem videlicet, ut
digne secundum eos sit veritas, ali-
quando quidem in Valentino, aliquando
autem in Marcione, aliquando in Ce-
rintho, postea deinde in Basilide .. .
Unusquisque enim ipsorum omnimodo
perversus semetipsum, regulam veri-
tatis depravans, preedicare non con-
funditur. Cum autem ad eam iterum
The Catholics therefore required the confession of it. 129
them again to that tradition which comes from the Apostles,
which is guarded in the Churches through the successions
of presbyters, they are opposed to tradition, alleging that,
being superior in wisdom not only to the presbyters, but even
to the Apostles, they have discovered the pure truth ; whereas
the Apostles mixed up with the words of the Saviour things
which pertain to the Law; and not only the Apostles, but _
even the Lord Himself also, at one time spoke from the
Demiurge, at another from the middle power’, and sometimes 1 a medie-
again from the highest’; and that they themselves, on the 4
other hand, know the hidden mystery undoubtedly, unde- wade.
filedly, and sincerely ; an assertion which is indeed a most
impudent blasphemy against their Maker.’ In opposition
to all these impious dogmatisers, all the sons of the Church
in that age were most properly obliged to profess belief “in
one Catholic Church ;”’ that is, that they willed*® constantly to
cleave to that doctrine and faith which was. preached with one
mouth, as it were, by the Bishops and Presbyters in the
Apostolic Churches throughout the world, in agreement with
the Holy Scriptures. The meaning of the article can hardly
be better expressed than in the words of Irenzus, at the be-
‘ginning of chap. iv. of the afore-cited book’; “‘ We ought
not to be still in quest of the truth among others, which it is
easy to get from the Church; since the Apostles cast into it
most abundantly, as into a rich treasury, all things which
appertain to the truth, so that whosoever will, may take from
it the water of life. For this is the entrance unto life; whereas
all other [teachers] are thieves and robbers; on which ac-
count we ought indeed to avoid them ;* but what belongs to
3 voluisse.
[153]
traditionem, quee est ab apostolis, quae
persuccessiones presbyterorum in eccle-
siis custoditur, provocamus cos, adver-
santur traditioni, dicentes se non solum
presbyteris, sed etiam apostolis exis-
tentes sapientiores, sinceram invenisse
veritatem ; apostolos autem admiscu-
isse ea, quee sunt legalia, Salvatoris
verbis; et non solum apostolos, sed
etiam ipsum Dominum, modo quidem
a Demiurgo, modo autem a medietate,
interdum autem a summitate fecisse
sermones; et se vero indubitate et in-
contaminate et sincere absconditum
scire mysterium ; quod quidem impu-
BULL,—J. 0. 0.
dentissime est blasphemare suum Fac-
torem. —[p. 175.]
¥ Non oportet adhuc querere apud
alios veritatem, quam facile est ab
ecclesia sumere; cum apostoli, quasi
in depositorium dives, plenissime in
eam contulerint omnia que sint veri-
tatis; uti omnis,quicumque velit, sumat
ex ea potum vite. Hee est enim
vitee introitus; omnes autem reliqui
fures sunt et latrones; propter quod
oportet devitare quidem illos; que
autem sunt ecclesiee, cum summa dili-
gentia diligere, et apprehendere veri-
tatis traditionem.—[p. 178.]
K
180 The last two Articles were directed against the Gnostics ;
gupement the Church we ought with the utmost diligence to love’, and
cammorzo tO embrace the tradition of the truth.”
cuurcH. 171, The two remaining articles, on “the Resurrection of the
1 diligere; flesh,” and on “the Life Everlasting,’ are given in express
to terms even in the Clementine Creed, in the confession of
meee Arius and Euzoius, in that also of the Arian pseudo-synod
«to Of Sardica, which have been already mentioned, and finally
assis in the rule of faith in Irenzeus, i.2. That most of the Gno-
stics, however,. denied the resurrection of the flesh, and, by
consequence, the everlasting life of the world to come, is too
well known to require a laboured proof. It is of these, no
doubt, that Irenzeus speaks, v. 2; “ But they are utterly
vain, who set at nought the whole dispensation of God, and
deny the salvation of the flesh, and despise its regeneration,
saying that it is not capable of incorruption.” He attributes
the same heresy to Basilides by name, book i. 23%; and to
Marcion, in chap. 29 of the same book*; with respect to
both of whom Tertullian agrees with him, in his treatise On
the Prescription against Heresies. Whilst Augustine, in his
work On Heresies, attributes the same impious doctrine to
Simon Magus, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Apelles, and other
heretics of the same character, Now from all this it is at
55 last clear, that what follows the clause, “And in the Holy
Ghost,” in the Creed of Jerusalem, was certainly not added
to the Eastern Creed by the fathers of Constantinople,
but had been inserted in that creed long before the Council
of Constantinople, and even that of Nice, in opposition to the
impious ravings of the Gnostics, who began to put forth their
heresies publicly about the beginning of the second century.
16. But, that you may see yet more clearly the antiquity
of the whole Creed of Jerusalem, I shall not be unwilling
[154] to show briefly that even the preceding articles of the same
creed, respecting God the Father and the Son, are so drawn
up as most manifestly to be aimed against the blasphemies of
the Gnostics. The article on God the Father is expressed in
these words; “I believe in one God the Father Almighty,
* Vani autem omnimodo, qui uni- tes non eam capacem esse immortali-
versam dispositionem Dei contem- tatis.—[c. 24. 3. p. 101.]
nunt, et carnis salutem negant, et * [¢, 27. 2. p. 106.]
regenerationem ejus spernunt, dicen-
as are also the Articles respecting the Father and the Son. 131
Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and omar. vz
invisible”? The Cerinthians with other Gnostics did not 5*%*°
acknowledge one God the Father as the Creator, but asserted
that the Demiurge, the Creator and God of this world, was
one, and the Father of Christ our Lord was another. The
Cerdonites and the Marcionites had the boldness to declare,
explicitly, that there were two Gods and two Principles.
Indeed, all the Gnostics ascribed the things visible and the
things invisible (τὼ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα) to different creators,
and denied that this visible world was made by the supreme
God. The next clause is, “ And in one Lord Jesus Christ.’
The Cerinthians, as has often been stated by us in this work
and elsewhere, denied that Jesus Christ was one, separating
Jesus from Christ, and affirming that Christ descended from
above into Jesus at His baptism, and at the coming on of’!
His passion flew back again to His own pleroma. The same
Cerinthians taught, as did also the Carpocratians, (and so far
the Ebionites, too, agreed with them,) that the Lord Jesus
‘was a mere man, and the son of a man, and had no existence
at all before His birth of Mary. And they are glanced at in
the next words of the creed, “The only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, very God.”
All the Gnostics, however, denied that God the Father made
all things by His Son, and therefore it was added, “‘ by whom
all things were made.” What follows next, “ Incarnate, and
made man, crucified, &c.,”’ is manifestly aimed at the Docetez,
who affirmed, that our Lord was born as man, suffered, and
died in an imaginary way’; a heresy which was maintained
by almost all the Gnostics. To the article on Christ’s?
coming to judge the quick and the dead, these words are
subjoined, “of whose kingdom there shall be no end” (οὗ
τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος) ; words which, although they
are not in the Nicene Creed, occur in that of Constantinople;
though they have no relation to the Macedonian controversy.
They are also to be found in the Clementine Creed; Apo-
stolical Constitutions, vii. 41. That they were not at all
an addition of the fathers of Constantinople, but existed
in the ancient creed which prevailed in the East long before
the Council of Constantinople, or even that of Nice, is;
instante.
[155]
putative.
istis ico-
proved by this argument; that words equivalent to them ἡ δύναμα.
K 2
JUDGMENT
OF THE
” CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
--------..-....
1 missa. °
2 per.
[156]
3 senten-
tiam.
4 clausu-
lam.
5 παρα:
φραστικῶς.
182 . Eternal Kingdom of Christ in the Ante-Nicene Creed ;
are found in most of the confessions of the Arians preserved
in Athanasius’, where they wished to persuade others that
they religiously maintained the ancient rule of the Catholic
faith. Thus the Eusebian party, in their Confession, declare®
their belief that Christ “ cometh to judge the quick and γε:
dead, and that He continueth a ins and God for ever”
(ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς, καὶ διαμένοντα Bactréa
καὶ Θεὸν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας). In like manner the Confession of
Theophronius, also contained in Athanasius, has these words
concerning Christ*; “And cometh again with glory and
power to judge the quick and the dead, and abideth for ever”
(καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης καὶ δυνάμεως κρῖναι ζῶντας
καὶ νεκροὺς, καὶ μένοντα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας). The Confession of
the Arians, likewise, which was carried’ into Gaul by’ Nar-.
cissus and others, and is also mentioned by Athanasius,
expresses the same article still more fully, m these words®;
‘* Whose kingdom being indestructible, remaineth unto bound-
less ages”? (οὗ ἡ βασιλεία, ἀκατάλυτος οὖσα, διαμένει εἰς τοὺς
ἀπείρους αἰῶνας). The same sentence® occurs in the Con-
fession of the same party which was despatched into Italy by
the hands of Macedonius and others, and in the Confession
of the Synod of Sirmium, which Athanasius recites‘ just after-
wards. It is therefore manifest, that the article* respecting
the eternity of the kingdom of Christ had a place in the
ancient creed of.the East. This creed seems also to have
been referred to by that very ancient writer Justin Martyr,
in his Dialogue with Trypho; where, after having recited in
paraphrase’ the rule of faith concerning Christ our Lord, he
afterwards introduces Trypho repeating, as it were, the article
of the future judgment of Christ, in these words’; ‘‘ That. to
Him it hath been assigned to judge all men whatsoever, and
that His is the everlasting kingdom.” Iam of opinion, how-
ever, that the clause, “ Whose kingdom shall have no end,”
was directed against the Cerinthians, who taught that those
magnificent things which are spoken of the kingdom of Christ
in Scripture, are to be understood. of an earthly, carnal, and
» De Synod. Arim. et Seleuc, [8 27. p. 742. ]
e P. 892. [8 22. p. 735.] 8 ὅτι αὐτῷ δέδοται τὸ κρῖναι πάντας
a Ῥ 894. [ὃ 24. p. 757.] ο΄ ἁπλῶς, καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐστὶν ἡ αἰώνιος βασι-
ε Ῥ 895. [§ 25. p. 738.] Aela.—p. 264. [§ 46, p. 141.]
f P, 896. [§ 26. p. 738.] and 900,
. the Creed in Cyril represents the ancient Oriental Creed. 188
simply Epicurean kingdom, which should last only a thousand
years. There were, indeed, in the first age after that of the
Apostles, many’ even of the Catholics (and among them Justin,
whom 1 have just mentioned) who expected a reign of Christ
on earth for a thousand years; but their opinion, erroneous
though it probably? was, was yet totally * different from that
of Cerinthus. For those Catholics certainly did not believe
that the felicity of this reign would consist “in the gratifica-
tions of appetite and lust, in other words, in meats and drinks,
and sexual intercourse ;” which, according to the testimony
of Dionysius of Alexandria", was the mean and impure
opinion of Cerinthus; but the reign of Christ, which they
CHAP. γι."
§ 16,17.
1 plerique.
2 fortasse.
3 toto
ceelo.
56
[157]
expected, was one in which peace should flourish, truth and -
righteousness and piety prevail, and the holy name of God
be everywhere celebrated with becoming praises. In the
next place, the Catholics looked for that temporary king-
dom of Christ, as a prelude merely (if one may so say) to
His kingdom in heaven, which they believed would endure
for ever.
17. Now, from all that we have thus far advanced, the
antiquity of the Creed of Jerusalem is, as I conceive, at length
made sufficiently clear, and that it is in reality nothing else
than the ancient creed of the East, which was drawn up by
apostolic men as an antidote against the multiform heresy of
the Gnostics, which raised its head with increased insolence
in the East soon after the death of the Apostles. Cyrili ©
accordingly calls it “the holy and apostolic belief, which was
delivered unto us to profess.” And from this it is, moreover,
easy to gather that that creed is more ancient than all the
Western creeds, even the Roman itself. Vossius indeed
mentions, as strange and very improbable, the opinion of the
learned John Rodolph Lavater, who thought that the Apo-
stles’ Creed, as it is called, was formed out of the Constantino-
politan ; and cites his words on Christ’s descent into hell,
book i. part 3, chap. 15, where he writes to this effect ;
“This confession (of the Council of Constantinople) I most
firmly believe was, with a few alterations, afterwards put
- h ἐν γαστρὸς καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ γαστέρα i τὴν παραδοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν εἰς ἐπαγγε-
πλησμοναῖς, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστι σιτίοις καὶ ποτοῖς λίαν ἁγίαν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν πίστιν.---
καὶ yduors.—In Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. Catech. xviii. p. 501. [8 32. p. 800.]
vii. 25.
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
[158]
1. passiva,
2 ῥξηγήσειξ.
184 The additions made to the primitive profession in the East,
forth as the creed of the Apostles*.” 1, however, profess my
agreement with this learned man to this extent, that I think
that what is called the Apostles’ Creed, that is, the Roman,
was made up from the Creed of Jerusalem, or ancient creed
of the East, with which the Constantinopolitan quite agrees,
when you take away from it what was added in opposition to
Arius and Macedonius.
18. I will more clearly explain my view by the following
propositions. 1, The formula, by which in primitive times
those who came to be baptized professed their belief in the
most Holy Trinity, was simple, and couched in nearly these
words; “1 believe in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost.” This is the general’ opinion of the most learned
theologians of the present day; nor does Episcopius, as we
have seen, dissent from it. 2. The Church was not allowed
by the heretics a long enjoyment of this simple confession of
the Trinity. For when in the very days of the Apostles
there had arisen the Simonians, Menandrians, Cerinthians,
and other heretics of the same stamp, who had busied them-
selves in secretly corrupting the sound doctrine respecting
God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and other
principal articles of Christianity, by and by, after the depar-
ture of the Apostles from this life, those false apostles began
to scatter about and disseminate their heresies with increased
audacity. Hence it was thought good by the bishops of those
Churches which the heretics were disturbing, to draw up
an enlarged confession of the faith, and thenceforward to
require it of those who were to be baptized; one, that is, in
which the true view respecting the most Holy Trinity should
be more clearly set forth, with the addition besides of the other
articles of the Christian faith, which were likewise opposed
by the same heretics. 3. These first heretics arose in the
Kast ; and, generally speaking, it was the Eastern Churches
only which they molested, as has been already shewn.
4. From this we easily infer that the more ample confession
of faith was first made in the East. For where the poison
spread, there was the remedy prepared. 5, The explanations?
and additions, which were appended to that earliest and most
k [These are the words of Lavater, Christ into Hell, book i. part 3. chap.
in his work On the Descent of Jesus 15. p. 302.—B.]
ες afterwards for the most part received by the West. 18
simple confession of faith by the Orientals, were most of omar. vr.
them afterwards received by the Roman and the Western ee
Churches into their creeds, although, indeed, some of them [159]
at a later period. For in the Roman and the Aquileian
creeds, even in the time of Ruffinus, there were wanting
from the article on God the Father the words, ‘‘ Maker
of heaven and earth;” for Ruffinus does not give or ex-
pound them in the Creed of Aquileia, nor does he mention
that they were added in that of Rome. See Vossius, On the
Three Creeds, dissertation i. thesis 31. But it is evident
from what I said a little before, that that clause respecting
the creation of all things by the most high God was inserted
in the most ancient creeds of the East in opposition to the
heresy of the Gnostics. And hence, even Irenzus in his
rue of faith expressly has the words; “‘ who made the
heaven and the earth” (τὸν πεποιηκότα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν
γῆν). In the article on the Church, the word Catholic was
wanting in Ruffinus’s time in the creeds of Aquileia and
Rome. For Ruffinus does not expound it in the Aquileian,
nor does he mention it as contained in the Roman. In the
edition of Pamelius, it is true, the word is inserted, but con-
trary to the authority of the most ancient MSS.! This, indeed,
will perhaps seem a trifling matter; but what we shall next
observe will certainly be of very great importance. In the
creeds of Rome and Aquileia, down to the days of Ruffinus
and after, there was wanting (what, as we have seen, the
Eastern Creed had at a much earlier date) the article
touching the belief of the Life Everlasting, as is very plainly
shewn by Vossius, On the Three Creeds, dissertation 1.
thesis 43, See also the notes of the late’ Bishop of Oxford ' τοῦ μακα-
on Cyprian’s Synodical Epistle, § 70. p.190. In the African ° i
Creed, however, this article was extant even in the time of 57
Cyprian, as was shewn above, § 7. [pp. 117, 118.]
19. But I said that most of the additions of the Eastern
Churches, not all; were adopted by the Church of Rome into [160]
its confession of faith. For what appeared to them to be
superfluous * in the Eastern Creed, or to have been added in ? παρέλ-
opposition to heresies that were almost unknown in the ~~
West, the Church of Rome, liking brevity, omitted in its
' [It is omitted in the Benedictine edition.—B.]}
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHUROH.
1 plebs
Christiana.
2 δυνάμει.
[161]
186 The Roman Creed omitted many clauses of the Eastern,
confession. Thus in the first article, respecting God the
Father, it adopted, although at a later period, the words,
“Maker of heaven and earth,” but not those which follow,
“and of all things visible and invisible ;” thinking that these
were involved in what went before. Besides, the Chris-
tian people’ at Rome had scarcely even heard mention of
those monstrous persons, who ascribed to different creators
the visible and the invisible. In this and the following
article, the word “‘one”’ (éva), which, as we are informed
by Ruffinus, all the Eastern Churches had in their creed,
was omitted by the Church of Rome, no doubt because the
blasphemy of those who denied one God the Father, the
Creator, or one Jesus Christ, was almost unknown at Rome.
Again, in the second article, after the words, “ only-begotten
Son of God,” the Church of Rome did not add, what imme-
diately followed in the Eastern Creed, namely, “ begotten of
the Father before all worlds,’ &c., because all understood
these words to be virtually’ included in those that went
before, and had been so instructed in their catechising. So
also in the seventh article, on Christ’s coming to judge the
quick and the dead, the words which immediately follow in
the Eastern Creed, ‘ whose kingdom shall have no end,” are
wanting in the Roman Creed; because at Rome nobody
entertained the dreams of Cerinthus. The eighth article of
the Roman Creed is even now left bare, without any explana-
tion or addition, just as it stood in the first and most simple
confession of the Trinity, “ And I believe in the Holy Ghost ;”
a circumstance which before now has often excited my sur-
prise. For in the articles respecting God the Father and the
Son, the Church of Rome, as we have seen, borrowed some
things from the Churches of the East, to add to its own confes-
sion. Moreover, after the article on the Holy Ghost, it added
(after the example of the East) certain articles on the Church,
the Remission of sins, ὅζο, Why then did it not illustrate the
article on the Holy Ghost itself by any explanation? Why
did it not here also imitate the. example of the Easterns, and
add, “‘The Comforter, who spake by the prophets”? No
doubt, if this omission was made designedly, we must say, as
in the former instances, that these words were left out of the
Roman Creed, because they were directed against a heresy
---- -
because they were not needed in the West ; instances. 137
which caused no trouble to the Church of Rome. And, #4”. YL.
indeed, no other addition was here required ; for. besides that
of the Gnostics (and even this did not so much directly do
dishonour to the Holy Ghost, as to the Law and the Pro-
phets,) no other heresy arose in any place, which professedly
and openly went to detract from the dignity of the Holy
Ghost, prior to Macedonius, against whose blasphemy a suf-
ficient safeguard was soon provided by the fathers of Constan-
tinople. Arius, indeed, by denying the Godhead of the Son,
did by consequence even yet more deny the divine Majesty of
the Holy Ghost also; for that heretic could not have been so
foolish as to regard the Holy Ghost as superior to the Son of
God ; (and, therefore, by Epiphanius™, Ambrose”, and Augus-
tine 5, he is charged with having called the Holy Ghost the
creature of a creature ;) but he did not at all direct his efforts
to the maintenance of this heresy; and accordingly the
‘Council of Nice defined nothing respecting the Holy Ghost in
opposition to him. No doubt the Antitrinitarians of all ages
have selected the divinity of the Son of God as the chief
object of their attack, taking occasion, as is plain, from such [162]
passages of Scripture as relate to His incarnation and the
economy’ which He undertook for the sake of our salvation 1 οἰκονο-
(neglecting meanwhile, or rather rejecting, the very many 3
testimonies of Holy Writ, which speak most openly of His *quample
divine nature *) ; and as they had no such pretext to employ ὃ θεολογίᾳ.
in opposing the divinity of the Holy Ghost, they preferred to
be silent about it, content with having, as it were, wounded
the Holy Ghost also through the side of the Son. It is how-
ever, meanwhile, not undeserving of notice, that even some
of the ancient Latin doctors, in expounding the article of
their creed on the Holy Ghost, manifestly had in view that
addition of the Eastern creeds. Thus Novatian, a con-
temporary of Cyprian and a presbyter of the Church of
Rome, in his rule of faith, or, as we now call it, his Treatise
on the Trinity, chap. 29, on the article of the Holy Ghost,
has these words?; “ But this Holy Ghost our Lord some-
m Epiph. Heer. aa ae 56. [§ 17. brose. Append, vol. ii. p. 321.—B.]
Ῥ. 740. and § 56. p. 778.] ° Aug. de Heer. ὁ. 49. [vol. viii. p.
" Amb. de Symb. ¢.2. [This work 18.]
is undoubtedly to be regarded as P Hune autem Spiritum Sanctum
spurious. See the Works of St.Am- Dominus Christus modo Paracletum,
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
1 advoca-
tionem
gentibus
preestitit.
58
[163]
188 .The Roman Creed more recent than the Eastern.
times calls the Comforter, sometimes declares to be the Spirit
of truth; but He is not new under the Gospel, nor yet newly
given. For it was He, who both in the Prophets accused the
people, and in the Apostles accomplished the calling of the
Gentiles’:” and a few words after; “He is therefore one
and the same Spirit, who both in the Prophets and the
Apostles,’ &c. Here we have the sense and scope of the
words, “the Comforter, who spake by the Prophets” (τὸ
παράκλητον, TO λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν), clearly set forth.
For they intimate, that there was not one Spirit under the
Old Testament, another under the New; not one in the
Prophets, and another in the Apostles ; but that that one and
the same Spirit, who inspired the Apostles, had also spoken by
the ancient Prophets, contrary to what the before-mentioned
heretics taught. In like manner, Ruffinus, in his Exposition
of the Creed, after remarking that by the preposition im, in
the clause, “I believe in the Holy Ghost,” His divinity is
indicated, immediately adds4; “He therefore is the Holy
Ghost, who inspired the Law and the Prophets under the Old
Testament, and under the New Testament, the Gospels and
the Apostles.” Lastly, the tenth article of the Roman
Creed, on the Remission of sins, is clearly nothing else than a
portion of the article which is thus more fully expressed in
the ancient creed of the East; “ I believe in one baptism of
repentance for the remission of sins ;” or, as the fathers of
Constantinople express that article; “I acknowledge one
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” The former
part of this article, respecting baptism, the Romans seem
to have been silent on, because no danger threatened the
Roman Church from the heresy of the Gnostics respecting
that sacrament. Although, however, in all the particulars
which we have hitherto noticed, the Roman Creed is more
concise than that of the East, yet in its present shape it is
more full than the latter by two other entire articles, viz.
those on the descent of Christ into hell, and on the com-
appellat, modo Spiritum veritatis esse
pronuntiat ; qui non est evangelio
novus, sed nec nove datus. Nam hic
ipse et in prophetis populum accu-
savit, et in apostolis advocationem
gentibus prestitit .... Unus ergo
et idem Spiritus, qui in prophetis et
apostolis, &c.—[p. 725.]
4 Is ergo Spiritus Sanctus est, qui
in Veteri Testamento legem et pro-
phetas, in novo vero evangelia et apo-
stolos inspirabit.—[p. 188 87
The Creeds put out by the Arians are like that of Jerusalem. 189
munion of saints. But it has been long ago observed by omar. νι.
learned men, that these articles were anciently wanting in Bier
the Roman Creed alsot. These now are the reasons which
have persuaded me that the Eastern Creed, as expounded by
Cyril, is more ancient than the Roman, which is called the
Apostles’ Creed, and that the latter was formed and derived
from the fozmer.
20. I will add but one observation more, and then bring
to a close this discussion on the creeds of the ancient
Church, which is already sufficiently prolix. It is then to be
noted, that even the Arians themselves in their confessions
of faith, as given by Athanasius, and mentioned above by me
in this chapter, stated the article on the Son of God in
almost the same way in which it is found in the Creed of
Jerusalem. For thus does their first confession, recited by:
Athanasius’, express this article; “And in one Son of God,
only-begotten, existing before all ages, and coexisting * with * συνόντα.
the Father that begat Him, by whom all things were made.”
So also the second confession, which follows shortly after
in Athanasius*; “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, His only-
begotten Son, God, by whom are all things, who was begotten
God before all ages of the Father.” In like manner the Con-
fession of Theophronius runs"; “ And in His only-begotten
Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, begotten
of the Father before the ages, perfect God.”? Where “ perfect
God” (Θεὸν τέλειον) is at any rate equivalent to “true God”
(Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν) of the Creed of Jerusalem. So again the
confession of the same parties which was sent to Constans
Augustus’ into Gaul by the hands of Narcissus and others ;
“And in His only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
begotten of the Father before all ages, God, by whom all
[164]
- Councils of Ariminum and
r See Vossius On the Three Creeds,
dissert. i. thesis 34; and the notes
on Cyprian’s Epistle lxx, p. 190, edit.
Oxon.
8 καὶ eis ἕνα υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ μονογενῇ,
πρὸ πάντων αἰώνων ὑπάρχοντα καὶ
συνόντα τῷ γεγεννηκότι αὐτὸν Πατρὶ,
δ᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο. ---[Ο ἢ the
eleucia,
§ 22. p. 735. ]
t καὶ eis ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν,
τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ Θεὸν, δι᾽
οὗ τὰ πάντα, τὸν γεννηθέντα πρὸ τῶν
αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς Θεόν.---[8 23.
p. 736. ]
ἃ καὶ eis τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ,
τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, δι᾿ οὗ
τὰ πάντα, τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς
πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων, Θεὸν τέλειον.---ἰ ὃ 24,
p. 737.)
Υ καὶ els τὸν μονογενῆ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν,
τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν, tev
πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς
γεννηθέντα, Θεὸν, δ οὗ ἐγένετο τὰ
πάντα.---ἰ ὃ 25. p. 737.]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
OHUROH.
[166]
140 The Arians professed to adhere to the ancient rule. of
things were made.” And after this manner the article is
stated in nearly all their confessions which are afterwards
given by Athanasius. But they themselves say, that in these
confessions they have religiously followed the rule of faith,
which had been handed down from the beginning. For thus
they preface their first confession ; “Nor have we received
any other faith beside that which has been handed down
from the beginning” (οὔτε ἄλλην τινὰ πίστιν παρὰ τὴν ἐξ
ἀρχῆς παραδοθεῖσαν ἐδεξάμεθα). And they thus begin the
confession itself; ‘“ We have learnt from the first to believe”
(μεμαθήκαμεν ἐξ ἀρχῆς πιστεύειν). Thus also their second
confession, which is afterwards transcribed by Athanasius ;
“We believe conformably to the evangelical and apostolical
tradition”? (πιστεύομεν ἀκολούθως τῇ εὐαγγελικῇ καὶ ὦπο-
1 αὐτοκατα-
«ptrovs.
2 qui
demum.
[166]
στολικῇ παραδόσει). From this, therefore, we again conclude,
that that special mode of the Sonship of Jesus Christ, about
which Episcopius contends, (namely that, whereby He, in
His more excellent nature, was before all ages begotten of
God the Father, as God, by whom all things were made,) was
most plainly set forth in the creed, or creeds, which existed
in the Churches of the East before the Council of Nice;
just. as we have seen was the case in the Creed of the Church
of Jerusalem, the most ancient of all the Eastern Churches.
For the Arians, who put forth the above-mentioned confes-
sions, were Easterns, and they put them forth, as they
themselves -professed, in accordance with the rule of faith
which had been received in their Churches from the very
beginning.
21. In the next place, it is manifest from this evidence,
that those Arians were self-condemned’. For by confessing;
that the Son of God was begotten of God the Father before all
worlds, and that He is very or perfect God, and that by Him all
creatures were made, they themselves gave a death-blow to
their own doctrine. For what man in his senses could believe,
that by this confession nothing else was meant, than that the
Son of God is a mere creature, made, before all other created
beings indeed, out of nothing,—which was the opinion of the
Arians? How could He have existed before all ages, who
only’ received a commencement of being at the beginning of
the creation, that is to say, at the first moment of the first
faith ; hence they are self-condemned by their own Creeds. 141
CHAP. VI.
age? How could He be God, and very or perfect God, and ee
§ 20, 21.
create all things out of nothing, who Himself is a mere
creature? For as Athanasius justly says; “It is not pos- .
sible for creatures to have their generation one and the same
with the Creator” (οὐκ οἷόν τε μίαν ἔχειν τὰ δημιουργούμενα
τῷ δημιουργοῦντι τὴν γένεσιν). Lastly, how could He have
been begotten of God the Father Himself, who was made out
of nothing? Hence the same great Athanasius goes on to
confute the Arians out of their own confessions in the fol-
lowing severe terms*; “ You also have written, that the Son
᾿ was begotten of the Father. If, therefore, when you name
: the Father, or mention the name ‘God,’ you do not mean
essence, nor understand the [self-|existent Himself’, as He is Petes τὸν
in respect of essence’; but by these words signify something 2 Seep ἐστὶ
else about Him’, or even something that is inferior, that κατ᾽ οὐσίαν.
I may not express it; then you should not have written, βίωι
that the Son was of the Father‘, but of what is about Hin, or ¢ ἐκ τοῦ
of what is in Him: in order that by shrinking from saying Πατρίς.
that God is truly a Father, and by conceiving the simple
[Divine Being] compound, and in a material way ἢ, you may arenes
become the authors of a new blasphemy.” And a little ὁ
afterwards Y; “And you have yourselves also said, that the [167]
Son is of God ὃ; therefore in fact you have said, that He is ° ἐκ τοῦ
of the essence of the Father.” Besides, suppose we were sg
to grant, that the words of the ancient creed could bear the
sense which the Arians attached to them; it is still certain,
that the primitive Church, which used that creed, under-
‘stood the words in a far other and nobler sense. For the
Catholic doctors before Arius, although in other points in
the question of the Son’s divinity, some of them occasionally
spoke somewhat incautiously or obscurely, yet all did, with
one mouth, as it were, acknowledge that the Son of God was
begotten of God the Father in such a way, as that He was
* καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐγράψατε, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς
γεγεννῆσθαι τὸν υἱόν. εἰ μὲν οὖν τὸν
Πατέρα ὀνομάζοντες, ἢ τὸ, Θεὸς, ὄνομα
λέγοντες, οὐκ οὐσίαν σημαίνετε, οὐδὲ
αὐτὸν τὸν ὄντα, ὕπερ ἐστὶ Kat’ οὐσίαν,
νοεῖτε, ἀλλ᾽ ἕτερόν τι περὶ αὐτὸν, ἢ τὸ
γοῦν χεῖρον, ἵνα μὴ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ λέγηται,
διὰ τούτων σημαίνετε, ἔδει μὴ γράφειν
ὑμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸν υἱὸν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ
τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν ἢ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ᾽ ἵνα
φεύγοντες λέγειν ἀληθῶς Πατέρα τὸν
Θεὸν, σύνθετον δὲ τὸν ἁπλοῦν, καὶ
σωματικῶς αὐτὸν ἐπινοοῦντες, καινοτέρας
βλασφημίας ἐφευρεταὶ γένησθε. --- [De
Synodis, § 84. p. 750.]
Y εἰρήκατε δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ
τὸν υἱόν" δηλονότι ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ
Πατρὸς αὐτὸν εἰρήκατε.---ἰδ 35. p. 750.]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
OATHOLIO
CHUROH.
1 per.
[168]
2 δυνάμει.
142 “Of one substance,” expressed what was implied before.
born of His essence, and was therefore Himself really God;
this has been most fully shewn in my Defence of the Nicene
Creed, throughout the second book*. Idle, therefore, was
the boast of the Arians, that they no way deviated from the
ancient rule of faith; since it was the words only of that ᾿
rule, and not the true meaning of it, such as had been
received in the Church from the beginning, which they
retained.
22. In the last place, it is clear from this, that the Council
of Nice, rightly and of necessity, adopted the clause respect-
ing the Consubstantiality, in opposition to those impious
inventions of the Arians, and in order to assert the true
and genuine sense of the article of the ancient creed respect-
ing the Son of God. For, instead of the clauses which the
ancient creed had, namely; “the only-begotten Son of God, ἡ
begotten of the Father before all worlds, very God, by * whom
all things were made,” the Nicene fathers substituted the
following*; “ Begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that
is, of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of
Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten not made, of one
substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.”
Here indeed we see, that the words of the ancient creed which
follow μονογενῆ, “the only-begotten,” namely, “ Begotten
of the Father before all worlds,” were omitted to make room
for the clause respecting the Consubstantiality. The Fathers
of Constantinople, however, retained the omitted words,
adding from the Nicene Creed what was sufficient respecting
‘the Consubstantiality, in the following way”; ‘ The only-
begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all -
. worlds, God of God, and Light of Light, Very God of Very
God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father,
by whom all things were made.” But it is evident, that
nothing was here added to the old creed of the East, which
was not virtually * contained in it before. For it is absolutely
necessary that He, who was begotten of God the Father
z [Vol. i. pp. 55—367.] Ὁ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ,
5 γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Tlarpés* τῶν αἰώνων, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, καὶ φῶς ἐκ
Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, Θεὸν ἄλη- φωτὸς, Θεὸν ἀληθιψὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ,
θινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ
/ / ~ ps = \ φιιν S ΄
ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ, δι᾽ οὗ τὰ Πατρὶ, δι᾽ οὗ πάντα ἐγένετο.
πάντα ἐγένετο.
The Church maintained the true sense of the Creed. 148
CHAP, VI.
before all worlds, and is “ very” God, by whom all things τῶ τ
§ 21—23.
were made, be of one substance with God the Father, that is,
of the same nature or essence with Him (which is the one
thing which the fathers meant by that word) ; and in that ᾿
sense were the words of the ancient creed always understood
by all Catholics before the Arian controversy arose.
23. To state, therefore, the whole subject briefly ; since it
was agreed amongst Arians and Catholics, that by the rule
of faith which had been handed down from the beginning all
were bound to believe in the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten before all worlds of God the Father, “very” (or,
as the Arians preferred to say, “ perfect”) God, by whom all
things were made; the only point of inquiry which remains
is, which of the two parties interpreted that rule more cor-
rectly, that is, more agreeably both to the obvious significa-
tion of the words themselves, and to the sense received in
the Church,—the Arians, who taught that the Son of God
was nothing else than the first creature made by God out of [169]
nothing, (for to that the opinion of them all necessarily
comes, after the colouring is wiped off,) or the Catholics,
who believed that He is most truly God Himself, of the same
nature and essence with God His Father? But surely there is
nothing here to make us pause long, as between two roads’ ; 1 veluti in
for it is most manifest, that the Catholics alone really main- ἢ ἶο
tained the genuine sense of that rule, whilst the Arians wholly
departed from it, and therefore quite fell away from the rule
of απ, What, therefore, we must determine respecting
60
¢ With regard to the Arians indeed,
who lay down that the Son of God is
the first of all creatures and made out
of nothing, the case is very clear. But
the Semiarians also, who taught that
the Word was born of the Father, and
therefore was “ of similar substance ”
(ὁμοιούσιον), but not begotten of the
substance of the Father, and “of one
substance” (ὁμοούσιον) with Him, de-
viated as well from the proper mean-
ing of the words, which occur equally
in their own creeds and in those of the
Catholics, as from the ancient sense of
the holy fathers. ‘“ For,” as Athanasius
observes in his work On the Decrees of
the Council of Nice, “what is begot-
ten of any one by nature, and does not
accrue from without, that nature owns
to be a son, and this is the meaning
of the word.” (Τὸ γὰρ é« τινὸς φύσει
γεννώμενον, kal μὴ ἔξωθεν ἐπικτώμενον,
υἱὸν οἷδεν ἣ φύσις, καὶ τοῦτο τοῦ ὀνόμα-
τός ἐστι σημαινόμενον.) Whence, if the
Semiarians had meant, that the Word
of God was begotten really of the
Father, and was properly His Son,
they would have confessed Him to be
begotten of the very substance of God
the Father, and to be co-essential with
Him; which very many of the holy
Antenicene fathers taught in sense,
and some of them even in these very
terms, as our reverend author has ex-
cellently shown in the entire second
book of his Defence of the Nicene
Creed.—GraBe.
JUDGMENT
OF THE
’ CATHOLIC”
CHURCH.
[170]
1 evincitur.
144 The Creeds prove the contrary to what Episcopius said.
the Theodotians, Artemonites, Samosatenians, Photinians,
and the prodigies of our own time, the Socinians, (though
Episcopius has neither feared nor blushed to become their
advocate,) there is no one who cannot easily see for himself.
Having thus diligently investigated and accurately consi-
dered the creeds, which existed in the Churches before the
Nicene Council, it is at last abundantly clear, how vain was
the attempt of Episcopius‘? to prove from them, “ that in the
primitive Churches, from the very age of the Apostles, for at
least three whole centuries, that special mode of the Sonship
of Jesus Christ,” namely that, whereby He was begotten of
God the Father Himself before all worlds, and therefore was
God, “ was not judged necessary to be known and believed
in order to salvation.”” Surely the contrary assertion is quite
proved’ from these very creeds. Let us now proceed, with
the help of Christ our Saviour and our God, to complete what
remains of our subject.
a [Ρ, 389.]
NOTES OF J. E. GRABE 61
ON CHAPTERS IV. V. AND VI.
On the first outlines of the Confession of Faith which was anciently
made in Baptism, its increase and its completion, made in the very
age, and with the authority, or permission, of the Apostles.
1. In proposing to exhibit the first elements’ of the Apostles’ Creed, 1 stamina.
and its further construction” in particular articles, and lastly its? texturas.
ultimate completion, accomplished in the very age of the holy Apo-
stles, and by their counsel or permission, I attempt a subject of no
small importance, obscure from its very antiquity, and made still
more obscure by the novel conceits of various persons. Among
such views is deservedly to be classed the assertion of Episcopius,
that the most ancient creed, and that which was used in the earliest
administration of baptism, was this; “ I believe in God the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost ;” as is clear from his words quoted
above, iv. 1. [p. 66.] To which our reverend author gives an
excellent answer in the third section of that chapter [p. 68], to
the effect, “that that was never regarded as a full and complete
creed, such as comprehended all the necessary articles of the faith
in express words, &c.” And this he has proved with great learning
in chap. vi., that the Western Church, as well as the Eastern, before
the Council of Nice, used in the sacrament of baptism a more full [171]
and explicit creed than that mentioned by Episcopius, “TI believe
in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” And specially,
in the seventh and following sections, he has proved most plainly,
thatethe creed of each Church, used before the Council of Nice,
certainly did not end at the words, “I believe in the Holy
Ghost ;” but that the remaining articles of the faith, concerning
the Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and
the life of the world to come, had been long added to the creed.
But what if, from an accurate examination of Holy Scripture
itself, with the aid of fair inference from it, it can be proved ;
1, That the very first outlines of the Apostles’ Creed, as it was used
_in the earliest administration of baptism, were more full than that
confession of the faith given by Episcopius; “I believe in God the
BULL. —J. ©. Ὁ, L
JUDGMENT
OF TH
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
1 mox.
2 hypothe-
888.
[179]
62
3 funda-
mentorum.
146 Points assumed from the nature of the Baptismal Creed.
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ;” 2. That that creed soon
received so great additions, as that even in the time, and with the
authority, or at all events the permission of the Apostles, it became
at length as large as that which is now commonly called the
Apostles’ Creed, and contained all its articles, with the exception of
two only, on the descént of Christ into hell, and on the communion
of saints.
2. In order to prove both these propositions as clearly and as
briefly as the subject matter permits, I premise two assumptions’? ;
1. That the first Christians, whether made such from Jews or
Heathens, in the solemn profession of their faith before receiving
baptism, either of their own accord, or by the command of the holy
Apostles, observed a course, which is suggested by reason itself to
all who pass from one sect to another, and confirmed by the constant
observance of all times; namely, to confess the truth of what are
called the fundamental articles of that Church, to which they were
joining themselves, diametrically opposed to the chief errors of the
sect which they were leaving. 2. That these primitive believers,
before receiving the sacraments, testified that they gave their assent
to those heads of Christian doctrine, in which they had previously
been catechetically instructed ; since these [heads of doctrine] had
been delivered to them not only for the purpose of being embraced
from the heart, but also of being confessed with the tongue. Whence
the Apostle, in chap. x. of his Epistle to the Romans, after mention-
ing “the word of faith,” in verse 8, adds in verses 9 and 10; “That
if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto
righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salva-
tion.” And, indeed, if any defender of Episcopius, or any other
person whatsoever, is disposed to deny these two assumptions of
mine, I am totally at a loss to know, how he will be able to persuade
either himself or others that that confession, “I believe in God the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,” or indeed any other, was
made before baptism by the first disciples of the Apostles. Omit-
ting, therefore, all more lengthy proof of these foundations’, I at
once proceed with the demonstration to be built upon them.
3. With respect to the first article, “I believe in God the
Father ;” that this was enlarged soon after the very first con-
version of heathens, and that by these or similar words, “ One,
* confirma. Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,” I thus prove‘ from the
tum do.
force of the premises which I have assumed. The chief error of
tn ee ν,
The first Article of the Creed, as in the Apostolic age. 147
the heathen, at least of the ordinary mass of them, was poly- GRABE’S”
NOTES ON
_ theism, or the belief in several false gods, of which one ruled the ¢,p0nRs
heaven, another the earth, another the sea, and so on; and the vain 1V.—vL
adoration of them. Whence the Apostle, in Galatians iv. 8, writes ;
“ When ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by
nature are no gods.” On the other hand, the primary article of
the Christian faith was concerning one true God, on whom all
things in heaven, on earth, and in the sea, depend; concerning
whom Paul’s words are worthy of notice and consideration, in
1 Corinthians viii. 5,6; “Though there be that are called gods,
whether in heaven or in earth, as there be” (that is, amongst the
heathen) “gods many, and lords many; yet to us ” (Christians)
“there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in
Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we
by Him.” Accordingly, the Apostles in their first sermons addressed
to the heathen preached unto them that one true Almighty God,
“exhorting them to turn from these vain” (idols) “to the living
God,” as we find recorded of Paul and Barnabas in Acts xiv. 15.
In like manner Paul declared to the Athenians God, whom they
knew not, saying, “Whom. ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I
unto you. God that made the world and all things therein,
seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth,” ἄορ. Acts xvii. 23.
Who therefore can doubt, that of the heathen converts to the [173]
Christian faith there was required before all things the con-
fession of one God Almighty? You will say that the heathens
themselves' already believed in one supreme God, on whom all! ipsos.
things depended, and that there was therefore no need of their
being instructed by Christians, and confessing Him. I reply; this
was quite true with regard to the philosophers and more learned
among the Gentiles ; but it was not so with regard to the uneducated * 2 plebeiis.
and lower class of men, very many of whom were ignorant of one
true God, and He Almighty, as is clear from the words of Paul alone,
which have been already quoted from his Epistle to the Galatians;
so that we have no need of other arguments. But since most of
the new converts from the heathen were uneducated, and ignorant
of all the wisdom of the philosophers, according to 1 Cor. i. 26, 27,
it was obviously necessary that they should receive from Christians
the knowledge of one Almighty God, and, having received it, should
make confession of it previous to their baptism. But the more
learned heathen also, although they held that there was one God,
were yet ignorant of His having created out of nothing the heaven,
the earth, and the sea, and all things that are thereiv, or, more
L 2
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHUROH.
[174]
63
148 Evidence from Church History that the first Article in
properly speaking, obstinately denied it. For which reason, the
Apostles, in their instruction of the Gentiles, when they make |
mention of one God, immediately add, that He was the Creator
of heaven, and earth, and sea; as is evident not only from the
discourse of Paul to the Athenians already cited, but also from
another passage, Acts xiv..15, where, after “the living God,” it is
added, “ who made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things
that are therein.” In like manner, at the end of the world, when
the fulness of the Gentiles shall be to be brought over to the true
God, the angel “ having the everlasting Gospel to preach unto them
that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and
tongue, and people,” will say, “ Fear God, and worship Him that
made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters,”
Rey. xiv. 6, 7. It was therefore essential that the Gentiles, who
were solemnly to repeat the symbol of their belief, should in it
before all things profess that they believed in “ one God, Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth,” whom they had been heretofore igno-
rant of, or had denied, but of whom they had just been taught by
the Christians.
4. IT am unable, therefore, to subscribe to the opinion of some
learned men, who suppose that the above-mentioned words were
added to the creed in the second century, on account of heretics,
such as the Valentinians, the Marcionites, and the other Gnostics,
who denied the unity of God, and the supreme omnipotence of the
Creator of the world, as is clearly evident from Irenzus, Tertullian,
and others who wrote against them. For it is no less evident from
the same writers, that they urged against the heretics we have
mentioned that very confession of one God the Creator in the
creed, as having been received from the Apostles themselves.
Thus Irenzus, book i., after having mentioned in chap. i. p. 44
of my edition*, “the inflexible rule of the truth which each had
received by baptism” (τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκλινῆ, ὃν διὰ τοῦ
βαπτίσματος εἴληφε), afterwards, in chap. ii. p. 45 Ὁ, subjoins the rule
with this preface; “For the Church, although dispersed through-
out the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has yet received
from the Apostles and their disciples” (those, namely, who were
sent out by them into various parts, and preached the Gospel)
“the faith in one God the Father Almighty, who hath made
® [¢. 9, 4. p. 46.] Bovou τὴν eis ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα παντο-
b ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐκκλησία, καίπερ καθ᾽ κράτορα, τὸν πεποιηκότα τὸν οὐρανὸν,
ὅλης τῆς οἰκουμένης ἕως περάτων τῆς καὶ τὴν γῆν, καὶ τὰς θαλάσσας, καὶ πάντα
γῆς διεσπαρμένη, παρὰ δὲ τῶν ἄποστό. τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς, πίστιν.---ἰ 6. 10. p. 48.]
λων καὶ τῶν ἐκείνων μαθητῶν παραλα-
its present form was so framed by the Apostles. 149
GRABE’S
NOTES ON
CHAPTERS
IvV.—VI.
the heaven, and the earth, and the seas, and all that in them is.”
And in the following, chap. xix. p. 93, col. 1, line 11°, he writes;
“Since, however, we hvld the rule of truth, that is, that there
is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word,” &c. In
like manner, in iii. 4, p. 2054, and following, of my edition, he
mentions “the old tradition,” and reciting it in a short form, says;
“ Believing in one God, the Maker of heaven, and earth, and all
things which are in them.” Compare ii. 9, p. 128, col. ii. line 16,
and p. 129, col. 1. line 4°. Lastly, he says, in iv. 62, p. 360, line 115;
“Our faith is sound in one God Almighty, of whom are all
things” (namely, by creation)—(cis ἕνα Θεὸν παντοκράτορα, ἐξ οὗ τὰ
πάντα, πίστις ὁλόκληρος). In like manner, Tertullian, On Prescrip-
tion against Heretics, chap. xiii.®, says; “The rule of faith is that
whereby we believe that there is one only God, and that He is no
other than the Maker of the world.” In the same way, in his work
On the Veiling of Virgins, chap. i. he recites the creed, saying», “In
one only God Almighty, Maker of the world.” But in his treatise
Against Praxeas he expressly writes, chap. ii. “that this rule had
come down from the beginning of the Gospel.” From which testi-
monies, as well as from others of ancient authors, which I omit
for the sake of brevity, it is clear that they alleged, in opposition to
the heretics, the confession of one God the Creator in the creed,
as having been delivered by the Apostles themselves, at the begin-
ning of the preaching of the Gospel’. They would, however, have
acted deceitfully and very absurdly, as well as have exposed them-
selves to the execration and derision of the heretics, if they had
attempted to confute them from an article of the creed, which had
been only lately inserted by the bishops their adversaries, and to
pass it off as a tradition of the Apostles. This clause, therefore,
was not put into the creed by the bishops in opposition to the
teaching of heretics, but by the Apostles in opposition to the
error of the heathen. .
5. Again, with respect to the second article in the confession of
faith, Episcopius is incorrect in his assertion that the bare title of
“the Son” was mentioned'; for the names “Jesus Christ” are ! prolatum
fuisse.
[175]
ὁ Cum teneamus autem nos regu-
lam veritatis, id est, quia sit unus
Deus omnipotens, qui omnia condidit,
per Verbum suum, &c.—[e. 22, p. 98.]
4 In unum Deum credentes, fabri-
catorem cceli, et terre, et omnium
que in eis sunt,—[p. 178.]
¢ [c. 9. p. 126.]
[c. 88, 7. p. 272.)
8 Regula est autem fidei, qua credi-
tur unum omnino Deum esse, nec
alium preter mundi conditorem.—
[p. 206.)
4 In unicum Deum omnipotentem,
mundi conditorem.—{[p. 173.]
i Hane regulam ab initio evangelii
decucurrisse.—[p. 501.]
150 The second and following Articles appear from Scripture
supement expressly found in the confession of the Eunuch of the Ethiopian
ae Biol queen Candace, Acts viii. 37; πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν
σηῦβοη. Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” But
~ yet it is not to be supposed that ἃ full statement of the confession of
faith respecting the Son of God was made even in this formula.
For from the fact that St. Luke has only given these words of the.
Eunuch, one could not safely conclude that the Eunuch spoke no
others; since it is evident, from other passages in the Acts of the
Apostles, that St. Luke sometimes abridged the speeches that were
made by others. Thus, for instance, in the account of St. Paul’s
conversion, Acts ix. 17, these words only are recorded as ad-
dressed by Ananias to St. Paul; “Brother Saul, the Lord, that
appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that
thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.”
Whereas the Apostle himself, in Acts xxii. 14, mentions the follow-
ing words besides as spoken by Ananias; “ The God of our fathers
hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know His will, and see
that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of His mouth. For
thou shalt be His witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and
heard. And now, why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and |
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” And who
can doubt, that the Eunuch in his confession expressed the assent
which he had given to those things which Philip had declared to
[176] him, respecting the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ, as
they had been suggested by the words of Isaiah, “He was led as
a lamb to the slaughter,” &c.? That others also, in like manner,
before their baptism, made a profession respecting the articles
we have mentioned, in which they had previously been instructed
in their catechising, is deduced from our hypothesis. For it is
plain from Acts ii. 22, and the following verses, from iii. 13, 566.»
from x. 36, sqq., and from xiii, 27, sqq. and other passages, that the
holy Apostles first of all preached both to Jews and Gentiles the
passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Accordingly, Paul said to
Agrippa, Acts xxvi. 22, 23, that he “ witnessed both to small and
great, that Christ should suffer, and that He should be the first that
should rise from the dead, and shew light unto the people and to
the Gentiles.” Particularly worthy of notice also are his words in
1 Corinth. xv. 3,4; “ For I delivered unto you, among the first
points (ἐν πρώτοις), that which I also received, how that Christ
died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was
buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the
*commata. Scriptures.” And these very things are three clauses" of the article
νον
Υ *
we =
to have been part of the Creed in the Aposiles’ time. 151
concerning Christ, expressed in the same order in which they occur
in the Apostles’ Creed ; and these, the Apostle tells the Corinthians,
he had delivered to them as the “first” articles of the faith. And
~ no wonder 3 for it was the passion and death of the Christ, or the
Messiah, and the resurrection of Jesus, which the Jews obstinately
denied; whilst the heathen treated both with derision.. Hence
St. Paul wrote to the same Corinthians, in the first chapter of the
same Epistle, verses 23, 24; “ We preach Christ crucified, unto the
Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto
them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of
God and the wisdom of God.” By the force, therefore, of our
second hypothesis also, both [Jews and Gentiles], before receiving the
sacrament of the Christian faith, did, either of their own accord, or
by order of the Apostles, profess those chief articles of that faith,
which were rejected by both their sects.
6. The clauses following the “resurrection” of Christ, viz. “ His
ascension into heaven, His sitting at the right hand of God the
Father, and His coming again to judge the quick and the dead,”
were, it is certain, either denied by, or unknown to, the Jews and
the heathen. Hence, when our Saviour had spoken of eating His
flesh, and drinking His blood, and “ His disciples murmured at it,
He said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall
see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?” John vi.
61, 62. As if His ascension into heaven would seem to them to be
even more absurd than the mystery of eating His flesh and drinking
His blood. And, indeed, after our Lord had said, when standing
before the high priest, “ Hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man
GRABE’S
NOTES ON
CHAPTERS
Iv.— VI.
θά
[177]
sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of.
heaven; then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath
spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses ἢ.
behold, now ye have heard His blasphemy. What think ye? They
answered and said, He is guilty of death.” Matth. xxvi. 64—66.
And hence St. Peter, the chief! of the Apostles and priests of the
New Testament, in his catechetical discourses both to the Jews and
Gentiles, made mention of the ascension of Christ into heaven, or
His exaltation at the right hand of God, to have dominion over all
things, and at last to pass judgment upon all, both quick and dead.
See Acts ii. 33, sqq. and iii. 20, 21, also x. 42, where, in an address
to Cornelius, he testifies that he did this by the command of Christ,
in these words; “ And He commanded us to preach unto the
people, and to testify, that it is He which was ordained of God to
be the Judge of quick and dead.” If these things be taken in
1 princeps.
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHUROH,
1 in phan-
tasmate.
2 contexu-
isse.
3 in resur-
rectione.
[178]
152 If they had been added against the Gnosties, they
connexion with the hypotheses which I laid down at the beginning,
we may again conclude from them, that a confession of these articles
also was fitly made by the Jews and Gentiles that were recently
converted, and about to be baptized.
7. I am therefore compelled to differ from the opinion of a
recent very learned commentator on the History of the Apostles’
Creed*, who thinks that the article on the ascension of Christ was
added to this creed in the second century, and was in opposition
to Apelles, a disciple of Marcion, of whom the author of the
Appendix to Tertullian’s work On Prescription against Heretics,
c. 51, writes!; “ He neither says that Christ existed only in an ap-
parent form',as Marcion; nor yet in the substance of a true body, as
the Gospel teaches; but that, as He descended from the higher
regions, He framed’ for Himself in the very time of His descent a
sidereal and aérial body; that on His resurrection ὃ, in His ascen-
sion, He gave back to each several element what had been borrowed
in His descent; and thus, the several parts of His body being dis-
persed, He only gave back the spirit into heaven.” For from this
and the statements of other fathers about Apelles, it is evident that
he did not simply deny the ascension “of Christ” into heaven,
but of “the flesh of Christ.” If, therefore, the fathers had added
to the creed the article about Christ’s ascension for the purpose of
shutting out this error, they would not have expressed it thus
barely, “‘ He ascended into heaven,” but they would have said, “ His
ascension in the flesh into heaven” (τὴν ἔνσαρκον εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς
ἀνάληψιν), as Irenseus expresses it in his Exposition of the Creed,
book i. chap. ii. p. 45, line 11™, having in his mind, as it seems,
the said heresy of Apelles, although he.has not made mention of it
anywhere. In like manner, if that article of the creed had been
directed against the wild notion of Hermogenes, who affirmed that
the body of Christ was laid aside in the sun, it would have been said
that Christ had ascended with His body above all heavens, or above
all “the stars.” The case is the same in the following clauses, con-
cerning “ His sitting at the right hand of the Father,” and “ His
coming again to judge the quick and the dead.” Of which, if the
k [The work referred to here, and
afterwards repeatedly in the course of
these Annotations, is “ The History of
the Apostles’ Creed, with Critical Ob-
servations on its several Articles. 8vo.
1702 ; published anonymously, but
written by Lord Chancellor King. ]
1 Christum neque in phantasmate
dicit fuisse, sicut Marcion, neque in
substantia veri corporis, ut evange-
lium docet; sed eo quod e superiori-
bus partibus descenderet, ipso descen-
su sideream sibi carnem et acream
contexuisse; hune in resurrectione
singulis quibusque elementis, que in
descensu suo mutuata fuissent, in
ascensu reddidisse, et sic dispersis qui-
busque corporis sui partibus, in ccelo
Spiritum tantum reddidisse.—[p.213.]
m [c. 10. p. 48.]
would have been expressed in more exact terms. 153
former had been opposed to the error of those who affirmed that cranz’s”
the Saviour’s “ flesh sat in heaven void of sense, like a sheath, Christ pas
being removed from it,” as Tertullian witnesses in his work On the ry.—v1.
Flesh of Christ, chap. xxiv."; and if the latter had been added to the το
creed to exclude the heresy partly of the Marcionites, who denied
that God the.Father of Christ was just, or a judge, and partly of the
_Gnostics, who denied the freedom of the will, as the author before
quoted is of opinion; each clause would have been expressed, if not
in fuller, yet in more specific terms, and such as might directly
meet the heresies in question. But inasmuch as the authors of the
creed taught catechumens to profess simply and in general terms! ! generali-
that Jesus Christ the Son of God “ascended into heaven, sat at Lesser
the right hand of God the Father, and from thence will come to
judge the quick and the dead,” they must by all means be regarded
as having prescribed this confession to such as heretofore either
simply denied or were ignorant of these truths, namely, the Jews
and heathen who were converted to the faith.
8. But what must we conclude about that which precedes “the
passion, death, resurrection,” &c., namely, “the conception of Jesus
Christ of the Holy Ghost, and His birth of the Virgin Mary ?” [179]
Was this also from the beginning professed by Jews and Gentiles,
previous to baptism? I am somewhat in doubt, I confess, as
respects the very first beginnings of the Christian Church ; because
in none of the catechetical discourses which are extant in the Acts
of the Apostles, is there any mention made either of the conception
by the power of the Holy Ghost, without seed of man, or of the ᾿
birth from " the Virgin Mary; and because we nowhere read in that 3 ex,
book either that the Apostles generally * preached it to the Jews or 3 universe.
Gentiles, or that the one or the other disputed against it; as it is 65
clear was the case with the resurrection of Christ. It may there-
fore not be an idle conjecture, that the publication of this mystery
was reserved for a fuller exposition of the Gospel after baptism ;
either because the childbearing of a virgin, without lying with
man, would seem quite impossible to all men, both Jews and
others, (see Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, in a passage
quoted below, chap. vii. 4°,) or because the knowledge of the
supernatural conception and birth of Christ was not considered
equally necessary with the belief of His passion and resurrection.
Hence, we do not find the former truth treated of, not only in any
of the discourses of the holy Apostles, of which we have already
" (Carnem in ccelis vacuam sensu, —p. 325.]
ut vaginam, exempto Christo sedere. ο 8 48. p. 143.]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 ὑπομνή-
ματα.
2 editum.
[180]
154 The Article on the Forgiveness of Sins, not added against
spoken, but not even in all the written memorials of the Gospel
history; St. Matthew and St. Luke, it is true, describing it at
length, but St. Mark being perfectly silent about it, (to say nothing
of St. John ;) whereas, on the contrary, they all spoke of the latter
truth in express terms, and every one of the four evangelists after-
wards more fully narrated it in his writings. There is, however, no
doubt but that, not long after the foundations of the Christian
Church were laid, and especially after the Evangelical Memoirs’ were
published, Jews and Gentiles alike began to assail the wonderful birth
of the Saviour of the blessed Virgin Mary, wrought? by the power
of the Holy Ghost, and that hence an occasion was afforded to, nay
a necessity was imposed on, such as were converted to Christ from
either class, of professing His immaculate conception and birth,
among other articles of their belief. So that I do not think the
opinion of those learned men probable, who maintain that the clauses,
of which I have just been speaking, were added to the creed only
to exclude the heresy of Carpocrates, Cerinthus and the Ebionites,
which impiously asserted that Christ was born of Joseph and Mary.
But though this also were supposed, although not granted, still the
addition to the confession of faith in question ought to be ascribed
to the authority, or at least the permission, of the Apostles; since
this execrable heresy raised its head from its infernal source whilst
St. John, and perhaps others also of the Apostles, was still alive.
See Irenzeus, book iii. 3.
9. I proceed to the third article of the Apostles’ Creed, concerning
the Holy Ghost, in whom the disciples of the Apostles at their baptism
certainly testified their belief, as Episcopius himself rightly affirms ;
although others rashly deny this, supposing that the knowledge and
profession of Jesus Christ the Son of God alone was requisite. For
refuting them the account contained in the Acts of the Apostles,
xix. 2 and following verses, is of itself sufficient. But what must
we determine concerning those articles of faith which come in the
creed after the confession of the Holy Ghost? Let us examine each
one, beginning with “the forgiveness of sins;” for in the earliest
creeds of several churches, at least, the article on “ the Church”
was not placed immediately after the Holy Ghost, but later, nay
in some instances in the last clause of all, as is clear from the texts
of several fathers and confessions, which have been adduced by our
very learned author in this sixth chapter. Now that “the forgive-
ness of sins” was procured by Christ, and is to be imparted, through
baptism, to those who believe in His name, both Peter and Paul
expressly declared to Jews and Gentiles alike in their first cateche- .
the Novatians ; for it was used by them in their own Creed. 155
tical discourses. “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the nasE’s”
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” says Peter in his mashes
first sermon at Jerusalem, Acts ii. 38: from which, I would remark 1v.—vt.
in passing, the article of the ancient Creed of Jerusalem, which has
been quoted above in p. 48, col. 2, [p. 115,] “And in one bap-
tism of repentance for the remission of sins,” seems to have been
formed. He also concludes his first discourse to the Gentiles with
this doctrine of the forgiveness of sins, saying, “ To Him (i.e. Christ)
give all the prophets witness, that through His name, whosoever
believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.” Acts x. 43. Paul
in like manner says, Acts xiii. 38, 39, “ Be it known unto you, there-
fore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto
you the forgiveness of sins ; and by Him all that believe are justified
from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of [181]
Moses.” And no wonder ; for our Saviour Himself after His resur-
rection had expressly said to the Apostles, that “repentance and
remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem.” Luke xxiv. 47. As therefore the Apostles
and their successors expressly delivered this sum of the preaching
of the gospel, and fruit’ of the whole economy of the Son of God, ! fructum,
set forth in the foregoing words of the creed, in their catechetical
discourses, so it is not to be doubted that the catechumens in their
turn’, did, previously to their baptism, give it back as it were* in ? Vicissim.
the same words in the symbol of their belief. And that some indeed * quasi
How and then: did’ this at the:very first-original of the Christian" ΡΣ
Church, is allowed by the author of the History of the Apostles’
Creed already referred to; but he maintains that the constant
mention of the forgiveness of sins in the creed obtained first in the
time of S. Cyprian, on account of heretics, especially the Novatians,
who denied that the remitting of grievous sins* committed after _ 66
baptism had been placed in the power of the Church. But it ig
makes against this conjecture, that the article in question respecting minum.
the forgiveness of sins was expressed in the creed of the Novatians
itself, as 8. Cyprian testifies in Epistle Ixxvi. Pamel. lxix. Oxon. or
‘book i. Epistle 6, where he thus writes” ; “ But ifany one allege this
objection, and say, that Novatian holds the same rule that the
Catholic Church holds, baptizes with the same creed as we also do ;
let him who thinks that this objection may be alleged know, in the
first place, that we and the schismatics have not the same rule of
-P Quod si aliquis illud opponit, ut eodem symbolo quo et nos baptizare ;
dicat eandem Novatianum legem te- sciat quisquis hoc opponendum putat,
nere, quam Catholica Ecclesia teneat, primum non esse unam nobis et schis-
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH,
[182]
1 recensio-
nibus.
2 ingeni-
_ 08e.
156 It would have been expressed in other terms.
the creed, nor the same interrogation. For when they say, ‘ Dost
thou believe in remission of sins and eternal life through the holy
Church ?’ they lie in their interrogation, for they have no church,
&c.” But it does not seem likely that the Novatians themselves
would have inserted or retained in their confession of faith “the
remission of sins by the holy Church,” unless they had seen that it
was already received into all the creeds of other Churches. More-
over, if this profession of forgiveness of sins had not been used
previously in some Churches, but had been inserted into their creeds
at last to exclude the rigid views of the Novatians, in that case
there would have met us the mention of “sins committed after the
reception of the sacraments,” or some other similar expression.
But, on the contrary, we find in all either the expression, “ forgive-
ness of sins” in general, or “one baptism of repentance,” or simply
“one baptism for the remission of sins ;” the former of which does
not contradict the error of the Novatians at all; while the latter
might have seemed in some measure even to favour 10. As for the
learned writer’s objection, that no mention is made of the remission
of sins in the texts! of the creed by Irenzeus, Tertullian, or Origen,
I answer briefly, that they against whom these fathers alleged
the apostolical rule of faith, did not deny the forgiveness of sins, or
at any rate, that such an error of theirs was unknown to them, and
therefore they did not think it requisite to mention this article.
However, both Irenzeus and Tertullian did allude to this very
article in their writings, as our reverend author has ably 5 shewn in
§§ 7 and 13 of the sixth book.
10. “The resurrection of the dead” was inserted in the creed
from the very beginning of the Christian religion, as the very
learned author of the History of the Apostles’ Creed thinks, pp.[389,]
390. Now I have some little doubt about the very earliest age,
for the catechetical discourses both of St. Peter and St. Paul end
with “ the remission of sins,” Acts ii. x. and xiii. Nor does St. Paul’s
sermon at Athens expressly mention the resurrection of the dead,
but only the raising of Jesus Christ from the dead, Acts xvii. 31.
Although his audience seem to have inferred from his words the’
resurrection of the dead generally ; for it is added in the following
verse, 32 ; “ Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead,
some mocked, and others said, We will hear thee again of this
maticis symboli legem, neque eandem = siam?” mentiuntur in interrogatione,
interrogationem. Nam cam dicunt, quando non habeant ecclesiam, &¢.—
“Credis remissionem peccatorum et [Ep. Ixxvi. p. 154.]
vitam eternam per sanctam eccle-
The Article on the Resurrection of the Dead. 157
matter.” From this, as it seems to me, we must seek the explanation
of what is said of St. Paul in verse 18, that “he preached unto them
Jesus and the resurrection,” ὁ 6. “the resurrection of Jesus,” or,
“ which began in Jesus ;” as it is written of the rest of the Apostles,
Acts iv. 33, “And with great power gave the Apostles witness of
the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.” In addition to this, when
certain arose among the Corinthians, who said, “that there is no
resurrection of the dead,” 1 Cor. xv. 12, the Apostle recalls to their
memory what he had preached among them, and tells them, that
he had delivered unto them “amongst the first points” (ἐν πρώτοις),
the death and the resurrection of Christ, verses 3, sqq. ; and from
that he proves the resurrection of all believers; but he does not say
one word to intimate, that he had previously taught them this doc-
trine, and that they had themselves cast away this deposit entrusted
to them. In like manner, in 1 Thess. iv. 18, he writes; “But 1
would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them
which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no
hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so
them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him.” As if
+ they had been hitherto ignorant of this, so that it was now needful
for him to deliver this to them as a corollary derived from the
resurrection of Jesus Christ, which had been previously preached to
them. And St. Luke’s words are certainly worthy of notice, when
he writes thus of St. Paul’s preaching at Thessalonica, in Acts xvii.
2,3; “For three sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the
Scriptures, opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered
and risen again from the dead, and that this Jesus, whom I preach
unto you, is Christ.” Here the resurrection of Christ indeed is
mentioned, but not of believers in general. St. Paul, therefore, does
not appear immediately from the beginning to have delivered to
the catechumens the resurrection of the dead among the first rudi-
ments of the faith. When, however, it was publicly impugned by
some and called in question by others, then indeed I have no doubt
that it was added as an appendix to the other articles of the creed.
And hence, as I conjecture, it came to pass that the Apostle, in
Hebrews vi. 2, mentioned in the last place “ the resurrection of the
dead and eternal judgment” among the fundamental articles indeed
of the Christian doctrine, but yet distinct from “ faith toward God ”
and “the doctrine of baptisms.” But, as “eternal judgment” is there
joined with “the resurrection of the dead,” I gather, that the article
on the state of “eternal life” after the last judgment had, in some
Churches at least, been already added to the creed.
GRABE’S-
NOTES ON
CHAPTERS
Iv.— VI.
[183]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
OCATHOLIO
CHURCH.
67
[184]
1 primo
omnium,
2 sponsio.
158 Onthe Church. The Article on Christ’s Descent into
11. Finally, with respect to the clause on the Church, I conceive
that it was added to, or inserted in, the creed last of all, not only
because it occupies the last place in the Novatian formula, alleged
by Cyprian, Epistle Ixxvi., and in the Confession of Arius and
Euzoius, mentioned above, ὃ 9, [p. 120,] but also because no
mention is made of it either in the catechetical discourses, or the
Epistles of the Apostles ; so that this article seems to have been
added to the others toward the end of the first or the beginning of
the second century, on account of the heretics and schismatics,
after they began to hold their meetings apart from the orthodox
Church. For in the time of Tertullian believers already professed in
their creed “the Holy Church,” as is evident from the very earliest
of his works, that on Baptism 4, in which he writes ; “ But as both
the attesting of faith and the promise’ of salvation is pledged under
Three, there is of necessity besides mention made of the Church ;
for where Three are, that is, the Father and the Son and the Holy
Ghost, there is the Church, which is the body of the Three.” Com-
pare another passage of Tertullian, which has been quoted already
in § 7 of this book vi. [p.118.] Respecting “the communion of
saints” I need say nothing, since it is clear that the mention of it
did not occur in the creed before the fourth century after Christ.
12. There remains but one article more, which I purposely passed
over, that on “Christ’s descent into hell:” the genuine meaning of
which has been so learnedly explained by the author of the History
of the Apostles’ Creed, so often referred to, that nothing better
could be expected from the most accomplished divine. Now,
towards the end of his long Dissertation, chap. iv., he expresses his
opinion, that the said article was inserted in the creed in opposition
to the Arians and Apollinarians, who denied that Christ had soul
or spirit, because the holy fathers used the following argument in
refuting the said heretics :—Christ descended into hell, either in
respect of His divinity, or in respect of His soul, or in respect of His
body. But it is absurd to ascribe a descent into hell either to His
divinity or to His body; it must therefore be determined, that He
descended in respect of His soul, and, in consequence, that He was
endowed with a soul. There are, however, these objections to this
view, viz. that in no confession is Christ said to have been in hell,
in respect of His soul, but simply to have descended into hell, or
into the places under the earth: and that this article occurs in some
4 Cum autem sub tribus et testatio quoniam ubi tres, id est, Pater et Filius
fidei, et sponsio salutis pignerentur, et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi ecclesia, que
necessario adjicitur ecclesie mentio; trium corpus est.—[e. 6. p. 226, ]
Hell, inserted before the fourth Century against Gnostics. 159
of the formularies of faith of the Arians themselves, and in others of @RABE's
earlier date than the Apollinarian sect. Hence it rather appears to ΚΣ
me to have been added to the creed some time before, on account of τΥ.---τι.
the Valentinians and the Marcionites. For these heretics, according
to the statement of Irenzeus, Against Heresies, v. 31, p. 450, col. 2",
say, that “as soon as they are dead, they ascend above the heavens
and the Demiurgus, and go to the Mother, or to Him, whom they
themselves invent, the Father.” And a little afterwards, p. 451,
col. 1°; “They say, that this our present world is the lower place ;
and that their inner man, leaving the body here, ascends into the
region above the heavens.” This fancy’ of theirs about the lower ! commen-
place is touched on by Tertullian in his work On the Soul, chap. lv. be
when he says* ; “ By us the lower place is believed to be not a bare
cavity *, or a sink of the world open to the air *, but a vast space in ἢ cavositas.
the hollow’ and depth of the earth, and a profundity’ hidden in its oe
very bowels.” ΤῸ prove, therefore, the existence of a lower region ‘ fossa.
beneath the earth, and the descent into it of the souls of the faithful, * abstrusa.
the holy fathers derived an argument from the descent of Christ
Himself into hell, on which Irenzus says, in the passage just now
cited" ; “If these things were as they say, it is plain that the Lord
Himself, in whom they profess to believe, would not have accom-
plished His resurrection on the third day, but expiring on the cross,
would at once, as is plain, have departed, going upwards, leaving
His body to the earth. As it is, however, He stayed δ three days 6 conversa-
where the dead were, as the prophet says of Him, &c. .. . And the 's est.
Apostle also says ; ‘But that He ascended, what is it but that He
also descended into the lower parts of the earth? This David
likewise said, prophesying of Him ; ‘ And Thou hast delivered My
soul from the lowermost hell.’.. . If the Lord, then, observed the law
of the dead, that He might become the first-begotten from the dead,
and abode until the third day in the lower parts of the earth ; and
[185]
τ Simul atque mortui fuerint, dicunt
se supergredi coelos et Demiurgum, et
ire ad matrem, vel ad eum, qui ab
ipsis affingitur, Patrem.—[p. 330.]
5 Dicunt, inferos quidem esse hunc
mundum, qui sit secundum nos ; inte-
riorem autem hominem ipsorum, de-
relinquentem hic corpus, in supercoe-
lestem ascendere locum.—[Ibid.]
* Nobis inferi non nuda cavositas,
nec subdivalis aliqua mundi sentina
creduntur; sed in fossa terree et in
alto vastitas, et in ipsis visceribus ejus
abstrusa profunditas.—[p. 305.]
ἃ Si heec ita essent, quemadmodum
dicunt, ipse utique Dominus, in quem
se dicunt credere, non in tertia die
fecisset resurrectionem; sed super
crucem exspirans, confestim utique
abiisset sursum, relinquens corpus ter-
re. Nune autem tribus diebus con-
versatus est, ubi erant mortui, quemad-
modum propheta ait de eo, &. . . . Sed
et apostolus ait, “Ascendit autem,
quid est, nisi quia et descendit in infe-
riora terre?” Hoe et David in eum
prophetans dixit,“Kt eripuistianimam
meam ex inferno inferiori.”. . . Si ergo
Dominus legem mortuorum servavit,
ut fieret primogenitus a mortuis, et
commoratus usque in tertiam diem in
inferioribus terre; post deinde sur-
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 abierit,
walked,
E. V. Ps.
xxiii. 4.
2 corpora-
liter,
[186]
3 σωματι-
κώς-.
4 intimo
et interno
68
sul.
6 cubito
pellere.
160
Evidence of this from Ireneus and Tertullian.
then afterwards rising again in the flesh, that He might shew to His
disciples even the print of the nails, so ascended to the Father; how
are they not ashamed, who say, that this world is the lower place,”
&c., as above.
“ For whereas the Lord ‘ walked’ in the midst of
the shadow of death,’ where the souls of the dead were, then rose
again afterwards with His body’, and after His resurrection was
taken up; it is manifest that the souls of His disciples also, for
whose sake the Lord also performed these works, shall go away to
an invisible place appointed for them by God, and shall tarry there
until the resurrection, awaiting resurrection ; then having received
their bodies again, and having risen again perfectly, that is, with their
bodies *, just as the Lord also rose again, shall so come unto the sight
of God.”
Tertullian uses the same argument, writing thus in the
passage before mentioned * ; “ We read that three days of death were
spent by Christ in the heart of the earth, that is, in an internal
recess, far within’, and covered in the earth itself, and inclosed within
‘it, and built above the still lower abysses.
Now if Christ [being]
God, [yet,] because He was also man, died according to the Scrip-
tures, and according to the same was buried, [and thus] satisfied
this law also, fulfilling the form of human death in hell; and
ascended not into the higher parts of the heavens before He had
descended into the lower parts of the earth, there to make the
5 compotes patriarchs and the prophets partakers of Himself*, you have to
believe hell to be a subterranean region, and to keep at arms’ length*®
those who through excess of pride suppose the souls of the faithful
gens in carne, ut etiam fixuras clavo-
rum ostenderet discipulis, sic ascendit
ad Patrem ; quomodo non confundan-
tur, qui dicunt, inferos quidem esse
hune mundum, &.... Cum enim
Dominus “in medio umbre mortis
abierit,” ubi anime mortuorum erant,
post deinde corporaliter resurrexit, et
post resurrectionem assumptus est,
manifestum est, quia et discipulorum
ejus, propter quos et heec operatus est
Dominus, anime abibunt in invisibi-
lem locum, definitum eis a Deo, et ibi
usque ad resurrectionem commora-
buntur, sustinentes resurrectionem:
post recipientes corpora, et perfecte
resurgentes, hoc est corporaliter, quem-
admodum et Dominus resurrexit, sic
venient ad conspectum Dei.” (The
Greek of the last portion is extant:
ai ψυχαὶ ἀπέρχονται eis [dopa|rdy τό-
πον τὸν ὡρισμένον αὐταῖς amd τοῦ
Θεοῦ, κἀκεῖ μεχρὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως
φοιτῶσι περιμένουσαι τὴν ἀνάστασιν"
ἔπειτα ἀπολαβοῦσαι τὰ σώματα, καὶ
ὁλοκλήρως ἀναστᾶσαι, τουτέστι, σωματι-
κῶς, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἀνέστη, οὕτως
ἐλεύσονται εἰς τὴν ὄψιν τοῦ Θεοῦ.---
Ῥ. 330.]
x Christo in corde terre triduum
mortis legimus expunctum, id est, in
recessu intimo et interno, et in ipsa
terra operto, et intra ipsam clauso, et
inferioribus adhuc abyssis superstruc-
to. Quod si Christus Deus, quia et
homo, mortuus secundum Scripturas,
et sepultus secus easdem, huic quoque
legi satisfecit, forma human mortis
apud inferos functus; nec ante ascen-
dit in sublimiora ccelorum quam de-
scendit in inferiora terrarum, ut illic
patriarchas et prophetas compotes sui
faceret, habes et regionem inferum
subterraneam credere, et illos cubito
pellere, qui satis superbe non putant
animas fidelium inferis dignas ; servi
The Creed in its substance Apostolical. 161
too good for hell’; servants above their Lord, and disciples above «nasz's
their Master, disdaining, if perchance [it be] in-Abraham’s bosom, oy), pnnus
to receive the consolation of awaiting the resurrection.” The heresy 1V.—v!. —
of the Valentinians and the Marcionites, therefore, rather than that 1 inferi,
of the Arians and the Apollinarians, seems to have been the cause mye
that the article on Christ’s descent into hell was inserted into the
creed ; unless any one haply would prefer to affirm, that the first
instructions ἢ of the Apostles theniselves gave occasion to their cate- ? cateche-
chumens to express occasionally in their confessions of faith, that °°
Christ descended into hell. For the prince of the Apostles himself,
in his first sermon at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, very
plainly set forth this article, when he said, “that His soul was not
left in hell, neither His flesh did see corruption,” Acts ii. 31.
13. From all, then, which has been hitherto advanced, if duly
considered, I think it becomes very clear, that all the articles of the
Apostles’ Creed, except that on the communion of saints, and perhaps
that concerning the Church, and also that on Christ’s descent into
hell, were expressed by the early Christians in their solemn confes-
sions of faith, in the very age and by the authority, or at any rate
with the approval, of the holy Apostles, and that consequently the
creed, as to the substance of most of its articles, is rightly called the
_ Apostles’ Creed, and was justly put forth as a tradition received from
the Apostles and their followers by Irenzeus in the passages already
adduced in page 63, col. 1, [p. 148,] to say nothing of other more
recent fathers. And indeed it was hardly, if at all, possible, that [187]
so many Churches, in parts of the world so separate, should so have
agreed in a form of faith, and in so many articles of it, unless it had _
gone forth in such a form* amongst them all, from an authority which ° talis.
all acknowledged, The reason, indeed, why the confessions of indi-
vidual Churches differ as to words and phrases, is, because “ the
symbol of our faith and hope,” as Jerome wrote, Epistle lxi. chap. 9 ¥,
“which was delivered to us by the Apostles, was not written with
paper and ink, but on the fleshly tables of the heart.” So that it
was open to each to express what he meant in what words he would.
Notwithstanding, I should be loth to take on myself the proof of
that tradition which Ruffinus mentions in his Exposition of the
Creed, when he writes thus of the twelve Apostles” ; “ Being about
to depart one from another, they first establish in common a rule
super dominum, et discipuli super scriptum fuit in charta et atramento,
magistrum, aspernati, si fortein Abra- sed in tabulis cordis carnalibus.—
he sinu, expectande resurrectionis [Lib. cont. Joann. Hieros. § 28. t. ii.
solatium capere.—({Ibid. ] col. 435. ]
y Symbolum fidei et Ba nostree, * Discessuri ab invicem normam
quod ab apostolis est traditum, non prius future sibi preedicationis in
BULL.— J. ©. 06. M
162 Traditions of the Twelve Apostles composing the Creed.
suvauunt for their own future preaching, lest they should haply teach those
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
they were separated one from the others.
whom they invited to believe in Christ, anything different, when
All, therefore, being in
one place, and being filled with the Holy Ghost, they compose this
short standard of their own future preaching, by putting together
in one what each thought, and decide that it should be given to
believers as a rule ;” although with regard to the earliest outlines
of the Apostles’ Creed, as sketched in the catechetical discourses of
St. Peter and St. Paul, it is not improbable that some such thing
was done. But we regard as nought the distribution of the twelve
articles of the creed among the twelve Apostles, mentioned by the
author of the 115th sermon De Zempore, in the tenth volume of
the works of St, Augustine *, and other conceits of a like character,
of which it would not be suitable to say anything here.
commune constituunt, ne forte alius
ab aliis abducti diversum aliquid his,
qui ad fidem Christi invitabantur,
exponerent. Omnes ergo in uno po-
siti, et Spiritu S. repleti, breve istud
futures sibi preedicationis indicium,
conferendo in unum quod sentiebat
unusquisque, componunt, atque hance
eredentibus dandam esse regulam sta-
tuunt.—[p. exceviii. |
® (Spurious. Serm. ecxli. tom. vy.
Append. col. 395. See also Serm.
ecxl. col. 394.]
CHAPTER VII. 69
ON THE WELL-KNOWN PASSAGE IN JUSTIN MARTYRS DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO
THE JEW.
1. THERE remains the other argument, by which Episco-
pius* endeavours to prove his assertion; “ The second argu-
ment,” he says, “ by which I prove the antecedent is this ;
it is clearly evident from Justin, a very early writer (for he
flourished one hundred and fifty years after the birth of [188]
Christ), and a martyr for the Christian religion, that the
Christian Churches of those times not only did not judge the
determining and the professing of this particular mode [of
the Sonship of Christ] to be necessary to salvation ; but even
kept up communion with those who denied this mode of
filiation, and professed their belief that Jesus Christ was only
‘a mere man’ (ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον), a human being [born] of
human beings’, and made the Christ by election. The ' hominem
passage of Justin from which this is clear, is extant in his hat
Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, which may be seen quoted in
the Apology of the Remonstrants, towards the end of their
Reply to the Censure, chap. 111, and drawn out at large and
defended in our Answer of the Remonstrants to the specimen
of calumnies, &c. of the four Leyden Professors ; to te
writings, not to go over the ground again, we refer you.”
Thus Episcopius.
2. I will here adduce the passage entire, not mutilated and
curtailed as it is by the Remonstrants in their Apology.
Thus, then, does Justin argue in the passage in question?;
“ Nevertheless, Trypho, the position that this’ is the Christ of ? τοῦτον,
God does not at once fall to the ground’, though I should be "' sid ayer
unable to shew that He both pre-existed as Son of the Maker s Neg
of all things, being God, and also was born man of* the 7
4 did.
BP. 340. νωμαι, ὅτι καὶ προὐπῆρχεν υἱὸς τρῦ
Ὁ ἤδη μέν τοι, ὦ Τρύφων, οὐκ ἀπόλ- ποιητοῦ τῶν ὅλων, Θεὸς ἂν, καὶ γεγέννη-
λυται τὸ τοιοῦτον (lege τοῦτον) εἶναι ται ἄνθρωπος διὰ τῆς παρθένου. ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ
Χριστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐὰν ἀποδεῖξαι μὴ δύ- παντὸς ἁἀποδεικνυμένου, ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ
M2
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
OHURCH.
1 ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ
παντὸς
ἀποδεικνυ-
͵7]
μίνου.
2 ἐξ ἀνθρώ-
πων.
3 ἡμετέρου
γένους.
[189]
[190]
164 The passage of Justin Μ. from which Episcopius argues ;
Virgin; but, since it has been fully demonstrated’ that He
is the Christ, the Christ of God, whosoever He may be, if
I should fail in proving that He preexisted, and vouchsafed,
according to the will of the Father, to be born a man of
like passions with ourselves, having flesh, it is only right for
you to say that I have been mistaken in this particular, but
not to deny that this is the Christ, even though He should
seem to have been born a human being of human beings’,
and be demonstrated to have been made the Christ by elec-
tion. For, my friends, there are some of our race* who
acknowledge Him to be Christ, but affirm that He was a
human being born of human beings ; with whom I do not
agree, nor would most people say so, who are of the same
opinion as myself°; for we are commanded by Christ Him-
self not to be guided by the doctrines of men, but by those
which were proclaimed by the blessed prophets, and were
taught by Himself.’ JT have in this passage differed from
the translator of Justin in the rendering of some other
words that are less important, and especially of those words,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ παντὸς ἀποδεικνυμένου, ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ
τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅστις οὗτος ἔσται, which that translator thus inter-
prets; Preterquam ex eo omni, quo probatur hunc esse
Christum illum Dei, quod talem Eum fore preostensum sit:
“ Besides from all that, by which it is proved that He is the
Christ of God, because it was shewn beforehand that He
would be such.” This version is not in any way agreeable to
the Greek text, nor is the sense good. For, from what goes
Χριστὸς, ὃ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅστις οὗτος ἔσται,
ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀποδεικνύω, ὅτι προῦὐπῆρχε,
καὶ γεννηθῆναι ἄνθρωπος ὁμοιοπαθὴς
ἡμῖν, σάρκα ἔχων, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς
βουλὴν ὑπέμεινεν͵ ἐν τούτῳ πεπλανῆσθαί
με μόνον λέγειν δίκαιον, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἀρνεῖ-
σθαι ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, ἐὰν φαί-
νηται ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γεννη-
θεὶς, καὶ ἐκλογῇ γενόμενος εἰς τὸν Χρισ-
τὸν εἶναι ἀποδεικνύηται. καὶ γὰρ εἰσί
τινες, ὦ φίλοι, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡμετέρου γένους,
ὁμολογοῦντες αὐτὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι, ἄν-
Cpwrov δὲ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενόμενον ἀπο-
φαινόμενοι" οἷς ov συντίθεμαι. οὐδ᾽ ἂν
πλεῖστοι ταὐτά μοι δυξάσαντες εἴποιεν"
ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἀνθρωπείοις διδάγμασι κεκε-
λεύσμεθα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ πεί-
θεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τοῖς διὰ τῶν μακαρίων
προφητῶν κηρυχθεῖσι, καὶ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ δι-
δαχθεῖσι.---- αοσαθ with Trypho, p.
267. [8 48. p. 144.]
¢ {In the translation of these words,
οὐδ᾽ ἂν πλεῖστοι ταὐτά μοι δοξάσαντες
εἴποιεν, Bp. Bull followed the common
Latin version, “neque sane plerique,
eadem mecum sentientes, illud dixe-
rint.” On this Dr. Burton observes ;
“It is strange that Bull followed this
incorrect translation. Without doubt,
the words are to be translated as we
find them in the Benedictine edition ;
‘quibus ego non assentior nec assen-
tirer, etiam si maxima pars, quae me-
cum consentit, idem diceret.’” With
all deference to these authorities, Bp.
Bull’s translation has, notwithstand-
ing, been followed, as it appears to be
the only one which the Greek as it
now stands admits; the other would
require οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἰ πλεῖστοι. See below,
Append. § 3. p. 190.]
its plain meaning ; it does not support his view. 165
before it is clear that Justin’s meaning is certainly this; “If cuap. vir.
only I have given solid proof in other ways out of the
prophets that our Jesus is the Christ of God, whatsoever
according to their predictions [the Christ] was to be, (whether,
that is, He was to be God, born man of a virgin, which I
with the Catholic Church believe, or simply aman born of 70
human parents, which you, Trypho, and your kinsmen the
Jews suppose,) even though I should not be able to shew that
He is the Son of God, and made man of a virgin, there is yet
no reason why you should therefore deny that He is the Christ
Himself, who was promised and foretold by the prophets.”
3. I am sure that there is nothing in these words of
Justin, from which Episcopius or the Remonstrants can
prove either that the Church in Justin’s time, or that Justin
himself, did not hold that the doctrine of the divinity of the
Son was necessary to be believed in order to salvation, still
less that they kept up communion with those who denied
that doctrine. Indeed, if the Remonstrants prove anything
from this passage, they prove too much, which is a certain
sign of a very bad argument. For the dogmatists who are
here alluded to by Justin, not only affirmed that our Saviour
was a mere man, but that He was born a human being of
human beings, that is, from the sexual intercourse of man
and woman in the ordinary manner of human beings. From
this, therefore, it will follow, if the Remonstrants argue cor-
rectly from this passage, that Justin, and the Church in the
time of Justin, kept up communion with those who, setting
at nought’ the authority of the holy evangelists, and de- τ susque
spising the uniform and consentient tradition of the Apostolic eeres
and Catholic Church, dared to deny that Christ as man was [191]
born of the Virgin Mary; which, if any one could bring
himself seriously to think, he ought simply to be regarded
as insane*, I have not indeed yet seen The Reply of the " ad Anti-
Remonstrants to the Specimen of the Calumnies, &c. of the Reccatce
four Leyden Professors; so that I cannot know for certain ¢*:
how they have there supported their assertion out of this
passage of Justin; and therefore am obliged at present to
form conjectures‘.
“ See, however, the Appendix to wards saw, are confuted at length. —
this chapter, in which the arguments Gnrasr.
of this Reply, which Bp. Bull after-
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH,
[192]
166 Justin is arguing ad hominem, on the principles of
4. Did they then suppose that what they maintain is
proved from Justin’s saying, that the position that Jesus
is the promised Christ is not lost or destroyed, though it
should be impossible to shew that He is God, and born as
man of a Virgin? Yet it is most evident that Justin in this
passage is using the argumentum ad hominem, as it is called,
than which nothing is more frequent in discussions of this
sort. For Justin had already begun to shew that the pro-
phets had foretold concerning Christ, that being before the
worlds the Son of God, and God, He was at length to be
born man of a virgin. Afterwards, however, when he had
digressed into a discussion on certain other points, Trypho
recalls him to finish his former argument, saying®; “ And _
now we have heard what you think of these points: resum-
ing, therefore, the argument at the point where you broke it
off, bring it to a close; for it seems to me to be a paradox,
and one which cannot possibly be proved. For your saying,
that this Christ preexisted, bemg God before the worlds,
and then endured to become man and to be born, and that
He is not a man [born] of man, appears to me to be not
only paradoxical, but even absurd.” And Justin, as Trypho
requests, then resumes the discussion, and pursues it at some
length, proving very fully that the Christ foretold by the
prophets. both would be God, and would be born as man of a
virgin, p. 274 [150], &c. Meanwhile, and to stop for the
present in some degree the mouth of his cavilling opponent,
he gives him a twofold answer. He first sharply reflects on
his blindness and obstinacy, and that of the Jewish nation,
inasmuch as they rejected, as incredible, absurd, and foolish,
the statement or doctrine concerning Christ [as being] the
Son of God, and God, who was to assume flesh of the Virgin,
although this doctrine was taught even in the Old Testament
in no obscure terms; and in consequence preferred on this
point to believe the wild dreams of their Rabbis, rather than
the word of God Himself by His inspired prophets. “Iam
© καὶ περὶ τούτων ὅσα φρονεῖς ἀκηκό- τὸν Χριστὸν, εἶτα καὶ γεννηθῆναι ἄνθρω-
αμεν. ἀναλαβὼν οὖν τὸν λόγον, ὅθεν mov γενόμενον ὑπομεῖναι, καὶ ὅτι οὐκ᾿
ἐπαύσω, πέραινε" παράδοξός τις γάρ ποτε, ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἀνθρώπου, οὐ μόνον παρά-
καὶ μὴ δυνάμενος ὅλως ἀποδειχθῆναι δοξον δοκεῖ μοι εἶναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ μωρόν.----
δοκεῖ μοι εἶναι. τὸ γὰρ λέγειν σε, προῦς [ὃ 48, p.148.]
πάρχειν Θεὸν ὄντα πρὸ αἰώνων τοῦτον
_ the Jews, who expected the Messiah to be a mere man. 167
aware,” he says‘, “that this statement seems paradoxical, omar. vu.
especially to those of your nation, who have never been willing ——
either to understand or to do the things of God, but those of
your own teachers, as God Himself loudly complains’.” Το δ᾽ βοᾷ.
easy, then, to conjecture (to observe it by the way) to how much
greater blindness Justin must have thought those persons to
be abandoned and condemned by God, who, while professing
to be Christians, and living in the clear light of the Gospel,
(compared to which at any rate ancient prophecy was but like [193]
“a light shining in a dark place’,’’) have with the like obsti-
nacy rejected that doctrine. Surely, if Episcopius and the
Remonstrants had carefully read these words of Justin, which 71
immediately precede the passage they quoted, they would
never, I should think, have regarded that passage as making
anything in their favour. But to proceed.
5. Justin next replies by confuting Trypho on principles
acknowledged by him, in the passage quoted by the Remon-
strants, to the following effect ; “‘ Nevertheless, Trypho, the
position that this is the Christ of God, does not at once fall
to the ground,” &c.; as though he should say, Even if I could
not prove from the prophets (although I have, indeed, already
proved it in part, and shall presently after demonstrate it
more fully and most effectively) that the Christ both would
be God, and for the sake of our salvation would be born as
man of a virgin, yet I should not on that account altogether
fail in my cause, at least with you Jews; for, consistently with
your own principles, you cannot possibly on this ground deny
that our Jesus is the Christ; since you expect no other, as
the Christ or Messiah, foretold and promised by the prophets,
than one who is a mere man, born of human parents, This
is acknowledged, indeed, by Trypho himself afterwards’;
“We all,” he says, “ expect that the Christ will be a human
-being, [born] of human [parents]’.” It is therefore plain ? ἄνθρωπον
that Justin in this place is arguing, not from his own view, (ὁ ἀνθρώ:
nor from the truth of the thing’ itself, but from the hypo-
thesis of the Jews, with whom he is disputing. Indeed, Justin
£ olf ὅτι παράδοξος ὁ λόγος δοκεῖ βοᾷ.---ἰ 8 49. p.144.]
εἶναι, καὶ μάλιστα τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους & 2 Peter i. 19.
ὑμῶν, οἵτινες τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὔτε νοῆσαι h πάντες ἡμεῖς τὸν Χριστὸν ἄνθρωπον
οὔτε ποιῆσαι ποτὲ βεβούλησθε, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων προσδοκῶμεν γενήσεσθαι,
τῶν διδασκάλων ὑμῶν, ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ Θεὸς —p. 268. [8 49. p. 145.]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[194]
1 ex 60,
quod, &e.
[195]
1 odbuBov-
λοϑ.
2 συνεργός.
168 Justin held that if Jesus were a mere man, He was not the
could not, without the grossest contradiction_and palpable
subversion of a great part of what he had earnestly contended
for in this Dialogue, have affirmed or conceded that it does not
really follow from the fact’ of Jesus Christ not being very God,
born as man of a virgin, that He is not the Christ of God,
who was foreshewn by the prophets; for in his work he is
constantly and earnestly engaged in proving that it was most
plainly predicted by the prophets concerning the Christ of
God, both that He would Himself be certainly God, and
would assume flesh from a virgin. Moreover, in another
place Justin expressly teaches that no one could have been
equal to the office of Christ the Mediator, unless He were the
very Son of God Himself, and therefore God. There is this
remarkable passage in his Epistle to Diognetus'; “ He Him-
self gave up His own Son as a ransom for us, the Holy for
sinners, the Innocent for the wicked, the Just for the unjust,
the Incorruptible for the corrupt, the Immortal for the
mortal. For what else than His righteousness could have
covered our sins? By whom was it possible for us, who are
sinful and impious, to be justified, but only by the Son of
God? O the sweet exchange! O the work past searching
out!” According, therefore, to Justin’s opinion, it was not
possible for any to make satisfaction for our sins to God the
Father (and this is the primary office of our Saviour Christ)
but “ God’s own incorruptible and immortal Son.” Now, -
what Son of God Justin designates by these epithets, is known
to all who have even the very slightest acquaintance with
the holy martyr’s writings. Unquestionably, he uniformly
means by them that Son of God who was begotten of God
the Father before every creature, who in the creation of all
things was present with Him, as His Counsellor’ and Fellow-
worker’, who at length at the fore-appointed time came down
from heaven, having become man for the salvation of man.
And not unlike to these are the statements which we have in
this very Dialogue with Trypho, pp. 322, 323*, where, having
i αὐτὸς τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν ἀπέδοτο λύτρον
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, τὸν ἅγιον ὑπὲρ ἀνόμων, τὸν
ἄκακον ὑπὲρ τῶν κακῶν, τὸν δίκαιον ὑπὲρ
τῶν ἀδίκων, τὸν ἄφθαρτον ὑπὲρ τῶν
φθαρτῶν, τὸν ἀθάνατον ὑπὲρ τῶν θνη-
τῶν. τί γὰρ ἄλλο τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν
ἠδυνήθη καλύψαι, ἢ ἐκείνου δικαιοσύνη ;
ἐν τίνι δικαιωθῆναι δυνατὸν τοὺς ἀνόμους
ἡμᾶς καὶ ἀσεβεῖς, ἢ ἐν μόνῳ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ
Θεοῦ; ὦ τῆς γλυκείας ἀνταλλαγῆς, ὦ
τῆς ἀνεξιχνιάστου δημιουργίας, «.A.—
p. 500. [8 9. p. 238.]
k [8 96. p. 192.]
Christ ; His Divinity is the ground of the Christian system. 169
first given a clear statement of the Catholic doctrine, (both
respecting the universal guilt of the human race, from that
well-known passage, “Cursed is every one that continueth
CHAP. VIE:
§ 5
not in all things that are written in the book of the law το,
do them,” and also respecting the satisfaction which was
effected’ by our crucified Jesus taking on Himself “the
curses” (κατάρας) of all men,) he then adds, that it had been
foretold by God, which the Jews were quite ignorant of, that!
“ This is He who was in being before all things, and is the
eternal Priest of God, and King, and would afterwards be-
come the Christ ’.” In these words he intimates that God the
Father willed and decreed that the sins of mankind should
not be expiated™ except by a High Priest, who was in being
before all things, and is eternal. Compare also what he says
from Psalm ex. of Christ the High Priest after the order of
Melchisedec, in pp. 250, 251, of this same Dialogue". Nor
was this a peculiar opinion of Justin, but. the common senti-
ment of the primitive fathers, who all with one voice taught
that it was altogether necessary that the Saviour of men
and Mediator with God should Himself be both God and
man; as I could have shewn by a great abundance of testi-
monies, if that were now the point under consideration.
! τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν πρὸ πάντων ὄντα,
καὶ αἰώνιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἱερέα, καὶ βασιλέα,
καὶ Χριστὸν μέλλοντα γίνεσθαι.----[1Ὀ14.
The last two words probably belong
to what goes before this extract. |
τ That the human race could not
have been freed from the corruption
contracted by the fall of Adam, except
by the incarnation of Him, who was
in His own nature Life, 1.6, God, or
the essential Son of God, Justin ex-
pressly taught in an Oration, or part
of an Oration, agaiust.the Gentiles,
which has been lost. From it Leon-
tius, in his book ii. against the Eu-
tychians and the Nestorians, has
quoted the following words; “ The
corruption haying accrued to us by
nature, it was necessary that He
who would save us should have
done away with that substance which
caused corruption. But it was impos-
sible that this should be brought to
pass, unless That which -is by nature
Life were joined to that which had
received corruption; [thereby] oblite-
rating the corruption, and preserving
immortal for the time to come that
At
which had received (corruption). On
this account it was necessary that the
Word should come to be in the body,
in order that He might liberate us
from the death of that corruption
which accrueg to us by nature.” (φύσει
δὲ τῆς φθορᾶς mposyevouevns, ἀναγ-
καῖον ἣν ὅτι σῶσαι βουλόμενος ἢ τὴν
φθοροποιὸν οὐσίαν ἀφανίσας. τοῦτο δὲ
οὐκ ἣν ἑτέρως γενέσθαι, εἰ μήπερ ἡ κατὰ
φύσιν ζωὴ προσεπλάκη τῷ τὴν φθορὰν
δεξαμένῳ, ἀφανίζυυσα μὲν τὴν φθορὰν,
ἀθάνατον δὲ τοῦ λοιποῦ τὸ δεξάμενον
(φθορὰν) διατηροῦσα. Διὰ τοῦτο τὸν
λόγον ἐδέησεν ἐν σώματι γενέσθαι, ἵνα
τοῦ θανάτου τῆς κατὰ φύσιν ἡμᾶς φθορᾶς
ἐλευθερώσῃ.) This fragment I have
given entire in Greek, as copied from
a MS. in the Bodleian Library, in
tom. i. of my Spicilegium Pairum,
seec. ii. p. 172; where I have also, in
p- 173, added in a note the parallel
words of Irenzeus, quoted in the text
by our reverend author.—GraBe. [See
Justin’s Works, Appendix, pp. 597,
598.—B. ]
Ὁ [§ 33. p. 1380.]
1 preestita.
2 or, “and
Christ.”
[196]
72
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[197]
1 δικαίως.
2 οἰκειότη-
TOS.
ὃ παραστῆ-
σαι.
* salva
hypothesi.
.
170 This was a recewed principle in that age.
present, however, I will only allege two witnesses of the
Catholic doctrine, but both very full to the point, one earlier
than Justin, and the other nearly his contemporary. Igna-
tius, a bishop of the apostolic age, certainly affirms this very
doctrine most clearly in the well-known passage in his
Epistle to the Ephesians®, which we have often quoted;
“There is One Physician, fleshly and spiritual, made and not
made, God in flesh, and true Life in death,’ &c. It is plain
that in the opinion of Ignatius, He alone who is Θεάν-
θρωπος, that is, God and man at once, was able to afford the
medicine of salvation to our grievously sick and dying souls.
On the other hand, Irenzeus, who lived very near the time
of Justin, urges and inculcates the same doctrine throughout,
and especially unfolds it learnedly in book 111. chap. 20?,
where he writes thus (the Greek text of the passage is
supplied to us by Theodoret) ; “ He, therefore, united man
to God: for unless man had vanquished the adversary of man,
the enemy would not have been vanquished fairly’; and
again, unless God had given us salvation, we should not have
possessed it securely; and if man had not been united to
God, he would not have been able to partake of incorruption.
For it was necessary that the Mediator between God and men
should by His own relationship’ to both bring the two toge-
ther into friendship and concord, and present* man to God,
and make God known to men.” It was impossible, then, for
Justin, or any other Catholic of that age, without doing vio-
lence to his own principle‘, to allow that it did not really
follow, from the opinion which held Jesus to be a mere man,
that He is not the Christ. For on the principle, “‘ Whoso-
ever is Christ, He must necessarily be God,” (and it was the
principle of Justin and all Catholics,) it is an absolutely
necessary result from the opinion of those who deny that
Jesus is God, that neither is He the Christ. It remains, then,
for us to conclude that, in the passage in question, Justin is
© [See above, c.i. ὃ 1. p. 4.] τασχεῖν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας. ἔδει γὰρ τὸν
P ἥνωσεν οὖν τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ Θεῷ.
εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἄνθρωπος ἐνίκησεν τὸν ἀντί-
marov τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, οὐκ ἂν δικαίως
ἐνικήθη ὃ ἐχθρός" πάλιν τε εἰ μὴ ὃ Θεὸς
ἐδωρήσατο τὴν σωτηρίαν, οὐκ ἂν βεβαίως
ἔσχομεν αὐτήν" καὶ εἰ μὴ συνηνώθη ὁ
ἄνθρωπος τῷ Θεῷ, οὐκ ἂν ἠδυνήθη με-
μεσίτην Θεοῦ τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων διὰ τῆς
ἰδίας πρὸς ἑκατέρους οἰκειότητος εἰς φι-
λίαν καὶ ὁμόνοιαν τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους. συνα-
γαγεῖν, καὶ Θεῷ μὲν παραστῆσαι τὸν
ἄνθρωπον, ἀνθρώποις δὲ γνωρίσαι τὸν
@cév.—fe. 18, 7. p. 211.]
“ Those of our race”’ might mean Christians, but yet heretics. 171
arguing on the hypothesis of the Jews, with whom his dispute omar. vit.’
is, and who believed that Christ would be nothing more than See
a mere man. —
6. But it may be objected further, that Justin very plainly [198] ᾿
speaks of those “some,” who in his own time, while they
acknowledged Jesus to be the Christ, yet denied both His
divinity and His birth of a virgin, as though they were
still in the communion of the Catholic Church and regarded
as true Christians; for he says that they were ἀπὸ τοῦ
ἡμετέρου γένους, “of our (that is, the Christian) race.’ But
this is nothing. For they who held this’ might have been ¥ Rpaiggors
said by Justin to be “ of our race,” @.e. the race of Christians ;
inasmuch as “they received Jesus, and boasted as though on
this account they were Christians” (τὸν ‘Incobv ἀποδεχόμενοι,
ὡς Tapa τοῦτο Χριστιανοὶ εἶναι αὐχοῦντες), as Origen says of
the Ebionites, (whom Justin also seems to have had in his
mind in this place, as we shall see afterwards,) in his work
against Celsus, book v.21 This latter father again, in book viii.
of the same work ', treating of some other well-known heretics,
speaks of them as, τινὰς ws ἐν πλήθει πιστευόντων, “ some
in a numerous body of persons who believe,” that is, who
profess the faith of Christ. Thus, also, Justin himself in his
second Apology addressed to Antoninus Pius, after speaking
of the followers of Simon, Menander, and Marcion, (and
they were the most abandoned of heretics,) goes on to say ;
“ All who spring from these are called Christians; just in
the same way as those who do not share in the same opinions
with philosophers, have yet in common [with them] the name
which is derived from philosophy.” If, indeed, in this place
Justin had been in controversy with some sect of Christians,
which differed from himself, and had said, by way of contra- [199]
distinction, that those, whose opinion respecting Christ as
being a mere man he is describing, were “ of our race;” it
might then have been concluded, with a semblance of truth,
that he himself regarded them as of his own communion,
and consequently as true members of the Catholic Church.
a P. 272. [ 61. p. 624.]
οὐ κοινωνοῦντες τῶν αὑτῶν δογμάτων
* P. 387. [§ 14. p. 752. See the τοῖς φιλοσόφοις, τὸ ἐπικατηγορούμενον
Def. Fid. Nic. ii. 9. $2. p. 250.] ὄνομα τῆς φιλοσοφίας κοινὸν ἔχουσιν.---
ἡ πάντες οἱ ἀπὸ τούτων ὁρμώμενοι [Apol. i. 26. p. 59.]
Χριστιανοὶ καλοῦνται, ὃν τρόπον καὶ of
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
73
[200]
172 The true reading is, some of your race,” i.e. Jews ; γένος
But the state of the case is far otherwise. For in the passage
in question, Justin is holding a discussion with Trypho and
his fellows the Jews, avowed enemies of Christianity; from
whom persons, professing the Christian religion, of what sect
soever, might rightly be contradistinguished as being all of
them included under the one class, or common designation
of Christians. But when Justin is speaking of Christians
who differed from himself on any question, and yet were
in the communion of the Church, and held the rule of faith
received in the Church, he is accustomed to express this dis-
tinctly. Thus, in this very Dialogue‘, referring to Catholic
Christians who rejected the opinion of the Millenarians,
which he himself embraced, he calls them, “ Christians, who
were of the pure and pious opinion” (τοὺς τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ
εὐσεβοῦς ὄντας Χριστιανοὺς γνώμης). Now if Justin had
spoken thus of those who denied the divinity of Christ our
Lord, the Remonstrants would indeed have had reason for
self-congratulation because of the communion which Justin
and the Church of Justin’s time kept up with them. But it
is quite an useless attempt on their part to go to prove this
from the mere fact, that Justin designated those heterodox
persons, as ὠπὸ τοῦ ἡμετέρου γένους, “ of our race.” But what
if Justin did not even say this? For my own part, at any
rate, [am most firmly persuaded, that it must be allowed that
there is a false reading in this passage, which can be easily
corrected by the change of a single letter; that is, by reading
ὑμετέρου instead of ἡμετέρου; and, admitting this emendation,
the clause will be, ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑμετέρου γένους, which must be
translated, ‘your race,” that is, the Jewish. Indeed, at the
very beginning of the passage, which the Remonstrants
quoted, there is an evident mistake of the copyist, who has
added two letters of his own to a very short word,—writing
τοιοῦτον instead of τοῦτον, as I observed in the margin; what
wonder, then, if in the present instance he wrote ἡ for J?
The reasons which induce me to be decidedly of this opinion,
are very much the following: 1. Wherever the phrase, οἱ
ἀπὸ Tod γένους, “they who are of the race,’’ occurs in this
Dialogue, the word γένος is used, not metaphorically, but
t [8 80. p.177.]
thus used literally by Justin. The Ebionites were Jews. 178
in its proper meaning, for race or family; so that they are omar. vi
said to be of ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους τινὸς, who are “of some certain ὃ
race.’ Thus, in the sentence which immediately precedes
the passage cited, τοῖς ὠπὸ τοῦ γένους ὑμῶν, means, “ those
who are of your race.’ So again in the preceding page,
οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους τοῦ ὑμετέρου, means, “those which are of
your race,” and so in every other instance. But in this
sense, Justin could not have called the professors of the
Christian religion, τὸ ἡμέτερον γένος, “ our race ;”’ for Chris-
tians were not all of one “race” or nation. Accordingly,
nowhere else, so far as I am aware, will you find the collective
body of Christians designated τὸ ἡμέτερον γένος, “ our race.”
2. The heterodox persons, of whom Justin is speaking, were
the Ebionites, as we shall afterwards shew, who really were
of the Jewish race. Hence, ancient Ecclesiastical writers
usually class the heresy of the Ebionites among the heresies
which arose amongst the Jewish people; see the Apostolical
Constitutions, vi. 6, and what we have said above in 11]. 1,
[page 55.] 3. In a passage in the preceding page, which
I just now referred to, Justin, evidently treating of the
Ebionites, writes to’this effect"; ‘“ But if those of your race, "
Trypho, who say that they believe in this Christ, do abso-
lutely require’ such of the Gentiles as believe in this Christ ' ἐκ παντὸς
to live according to the law, which was ordained through relly
Moses, or choose not to hold communion with them in this [201]
kind of intercourse,” (by which, that is, men are admitted
to communion of all things, as brethren and men of the same
sympathies, as he had been saying a little before,) “ these
also in like manner I do not agree with’®.” Those of the ἢ οὐκ ἀπο-
Jewish nation, who, whilst they professed to believe in our ai
Christ, nevertheless not only observed the ritual law of Moses
themselves, but also imposed the obligation of observing
it on other Christians of the Gentiles, were certainly no
other than the Ebionites, as we have already shewn. To this
you may add that statement of Epiphanius *, who asserts that
the Ebionites taught, that circumcision was instituted by
ἃ ἐαν δὲ of ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους τοῦ Sueré- τοῦτον τὸν Χριστὸν, ἢ ph κοινωνεῖν
ρου πιστεύειν λέγοντες ἐπὶ τοῦτον τὸν αὐτοῖς τῆς τοιαύτης συνδιαγωγῆς αἱρῶν-
Χριστὸν, ὦ Τρύφων, x παντὸς κατὰ τὸν ται, ὁμοίως καὶ τούτους οὐκ ἀποδέχομαι.
διὰ Μωσέως διαταχθέντα νόμον dvaynd- —[§ 47. p.143.]
ζωσι ζῇν τοὺς ἐξ ἐθνῶν πιστεύοντας ἐπὶ * Heores, xxx. 30.
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 ἀνακόλου-
Gos.
[202]
74
174 Parallel passage. The argument requires this reading.
God, and enjoined on all, “for the purpose of sanctification,
and for the sake of the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven”
(ἁγιστίας ἕνεκα, καὶ κληρονομίας οὐρανῶν βασιλείας yapw).
But when, in this passage, the Ebionites are described by
this circumlocution, οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους Tod ὑμετέρου πιστεύειν
λέγοντες ἐπὶ τοῦτον τὸν Χριστὸν (“those of your race, who
say that they believe in this Christ’’), who can doubt that in
the passage also which the Remonstrants quote, Justin, in _
speaking of the same Ebionites, likewise says, τινὲς amo τοῦ
ὑμετέρου γένους ὁμολογοῦντες αὐτὸν Xpiorov civar,—“ some of
your race, who acknowledge Him to be Christ.” 4. Lastly,
by admitting this reading, Justin’s discourse will be very
consistent, whereas it would otherwise be inconsequential °.
For he had said a little before, as we have seen, that even if
it could not be proved by him, that our Jesus was both God
before the worlds, and in the fulness of time became man of
a virgin, yet that Trypho, as a Jew, certainly ought not on
that account to have denied, that He was the Christ, or the
Messiah whom the prophets had promised. And this he
proves and elucidates very appositely by the example of
certain persons of the Jewish race, who, though they did not
acknowledge the divinity of Jesus or His birth of a virgin,
did yet confess Him to be the Christ. The case certainly
appears to me to be clear, and, if I am not greatly mistaken,
the impartial reader will agree with me, on a careful and
judicious consideration of the context and scope of this
passage of Justin’.
7. But perhaps some one may further object, that Justin
simply professes his own dissent from the heretics whom he
remarks on, without branding them with any other stigma.
For he merely says, he does not agree with them,—and does
not call their doctrine heretical, or themselves heretics.
IT answer; What if this be true? It is not with them that
he is concerned in this passage; he is intent on another
object, and merely mentions them incidentally. But what?
Is it absolutely necessary that he who regards any one as a
y [The Benedictine Editor main- On these words of. Justin consult
tains, that the reading ἡμετέρου should Bingham’s Vindication of the Doc-
be retained, although he agrees with trine and Liturgy of the Church of
Bp. Bull in supposing, that Justin in England, (Oxford, 1774,) p. 23.—B.]
this passage treats of the Ebionites.
The objection that he does not call them heretics, answered. 175
heretic, should call him a heretic as often as he speaks of
him? 1 entertain no doubt, that Justin in the treatise which
he wrote professedly against all heresies, (and which he
mentions himself in this Dialogue,) handled this heresy also
more sharply, and depicted it in its true colours. It is, how-
ever, simply untrue, that Justin in this passage did not brand
those who held this doctrine’ with any stigma of infamy. For
he says plainly enough, that they not only differed in opinion
from himself, but departed likewise from the opinion and
faith of most” Christians, that is, of the Catholic Church.
And, indeed, they who in Justin’s time taught, that our
Lord was only a man born of human parents, were either
Carpocratians, or Cerinthians, or else Ebionites: and these
when gathered together as into one body were very few in
comparison with the other’ Christians, and were all separated
from the communion of the Apostolic Churches. Of the
Carpocratians and Cerinthians no one has a doubt: and with
respect to the Ebionites, it is sufficiently clear from what we
have already alleged out of Ignatius and Ireneeus, that they
also, from their very first beginning, were regarded as heretics
by the Catholic Church. Indeed, their doctrine of Christ’s
being a mere man was reprobated by most* even of the
Christians of the circumcision, that is, of the Nazarenes, who
retained the primitive faith of the Church of Jerusalem,
OHAP. VII.
§ 6, 7.
1 dogma-
tistas.
[203]
2 reliquos.
3 οἱ πλεῖ-,
στοι.
which was founded by the Apostles, as I have fully proved, |
ii. 11, 12, [page 38.] And with no Church of Gentile Chris-
tians were these persons ever in communion, nor desired to
be, as we shall presently shew. Moreover, Justin intimates,
that those of whom he is speaking, not only went counter to
Catholic consent, but also were in opposition to the sacred
oracles of the Old, and, more especially, of the New Testament.
This, I say, he intimates not obscurely in the last words of
the passage we have quoted, which were omitted by the Re-
monstrants, with prudence enough, but with little candour:
“With these,” he says, “I do not agree, nor‘ would most
* τῶν πλείστων Christianorum. [But
but whether the words are translated
see the note on the translation of this
passage on § 2. [p. 164,] from which
it is clear, that the argument, which
Bp. Bull derives from the word
πλείστων, is of no weight.—B. Bp.
Bull’s translation seems to be correct,
as they are in the text, or as Dr. Bur-
ton preferred,the inference is the same,
that this. view was not held by very
many professed Christians, which
seems to be the ground on which Bp.
Bull’s argument rests. |
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[904]
1 ex utro-
que sexu.
2 κατ᾽
ἐκλογήν.
3 ὑπεροχήν.
4 in ea
circum-
latione
(περιφορᾷ).
5 virtutem.
6 effugere,
176 No others μὰ the Ebionites could have been intended ;
people say so, who agree in opinion with myself; since we are
commanded by Christ to believe not the traditions and doctrines
of men, but those which the blessed prophets promulged, and
Christ Himself taught.” Surely in these words Justin inti-
mates, (what we shall clearly shew presently,) that those
heretics trusted rather to human traditions, than to the
inspired predictions of the ancient prophets, or the words of
Christ Himself in the Gospel. And this was enough for
Justin to say of them in passing.
8. But the remark, which I have mene made—that it
is the Ebionites who were here referred to by Justin—re-
quires now to be explained and established somewhat more
at length. Certainly, if we consult Ecclesiastical history and
the ancient writers on heresy, we shall find, that no sect of
Christians existed either in the age of Justin or earlier, to
whom the opinion, which is here described, applies in every
particular, except only the Ebionites. For though the Car-
pocratians and the Cerinthians agreed with the Ebionites in
asserting, that Jesus was merely a man, born of a human
father and mother’, yet it was never really their opinion,
that He was raised to the office and dignity of the Christ by
election’. Indeed I know not whether they had any thought
at all of a Christ or Messiah foretold by the prophets.
The Carpocratians, according to the statement of Irenzus ὃ,
taught that the dignity and excellency* of our Jesus con-
sisted in this, “That His soul, as it was firm and pure,
remembered the things which it had seen, in the circle * of
the unbegotten God”; and that on this account a power®
had been sent unto Him by God, in order that He might
escape from’ the framers of the world, and after having
@ Quod anima ejus, firma et munda
cum esset, commemorata fuerit que
visa essent sibi in ea circumlatione
quee fuisset in ingenito Deo; et prop-
ter hoc a Deo [ab eo, ed. Ben. | missam
esse ei virtutem, uti mundi fabrica-
tores effugere posset, et per omnes
transgressa, et in omnibas liberata,
ascenderet ad Deum [8]. eum].— Lib. i.
24, [c. 25. p. 103. The following
passage, given in the notes of Massuet,
out of Epiphanius (Heer. 27. ὃ 2.) and
Theodoret (Heer. Fab. ὁ. 5.), seems to
supply the Greek of Irenzeus ; εὔτονον
(καὶ καθαρὰν, Theod.) ἔσχε ψυχὴν παρὰ
τοὺς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους. καὶ ἐμνημόνευσε
τὰ ὁραθέντα. ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς, ὅτε ἣν ἐν τῇ
περιφορᾷ τοῦ ἀγνώστου πατρός. ἀπέ.
σταλται ὑπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πατρὸς εἰς “τὴν
αὐτοῦ ψυχὴν δυνάμεις (. δύναμι5) ὅπως
- φυγῇ τοὺς κοσμοποιοὺς ἀγγέλους...
καὶ ὕπως διὰ πασῶν τῶν πράξεων χωρή-
σασα καὶ ἐλευθερωθεῖσα, διέλθοι πρὸς
αὐτὸν ἄνω.
Ὁ In most [MSS.] copies the in does
not occur.—Grase. [It is also want-
ing in all the MSS. of the Benedictine
edition.—B. ]
as the description applies only to them. 177
passed through all, and being set free in all respects, might cuar. vm.
ascend to God.” But this conceit, in my opinion, never be
entered the minds of those to whom Justin referred. Be-
sides, these Carpocratians were the most impure of men;
they were addicted to magic, and had gone on to such a
length of impiety, that they acknowledged absolutely no
difference between good and evil, as Irenzus in. the same
passage expressly asserts. It is not, therefore, to be believed
that Justin meant to argue against Trypho and his fellows the [205]
Jews from the opinions of these men, or rather, these brutes! ὁ θηρίων
in human form; especially as, in other respects, the Jews py soa
had nothing in common with them, either in regard to
country or sacred rites. And as respects the Cerinthians,
although they indeed Judaized with the Jews, in order to
avoid the persecutions which the Jews excited, yet the
description of the opinions which Justin here refers to, does
not apply to them: for the Cerinthians did not at all acknow-
ledge Jesus to be the Christ, understanding by [the term]
Christ not the name of an office or dignity,.but a certain ἢ ἢ nescio
fon, which, as we have often remarked, descended for a season *"
only upon Jesus from the highest power of all. It remains
for us, therefore, to decide that it was the Ebionites whom
Justin alluded to. For besides these three sects of Chris-
tians, no other is mentioned by any ecclesiastical writer as
having held, in Justin’s time or earlier, that our Saviour * was * Jesum
merely a man born of human parents. Almost all the other "°°"
heretics of those times, who entertained erroneous views
respecting, the person of Christ, impugned the truth of His
human nature. The Ebionites, however, as being Jews,
when they departed from the primitive belief and opinion of
the Church of Jerusalem respecting our Lord, embraced the
common Jewish opinion about the Messiah; which was the 75
very same as the view which Justin describes in this passage.
Hence Trypho afterwards refers to it with approbation thus ὃ ;
“It appears to me that those who say that He was a man,
and was anointed and made the Christ by election, say what
is more credible than those of you‘ who say these things‘ ὑμῶν.
© ἐμοὶ μὲν δοκοῦσιν ... of λέγοντες ἄν- oars? ὑμῶν λέγειν τῶν ταῦτα ἅπερ
τ θρωπον γεγονέναι αὐτὸν, καὶ κατ᾽ ἐκλο- os λεγόντων. καὶ γὰρ πάντες ἡμεῖς
γὴν κεχρίσθαι, καὶ Χριστὸν γεγονέναι, Χριστὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων
BULL.—~J. C, 0. N
178 The words which follow, on being guided by Christ, -
suveuzxt that thou dost. For we all expect that Christ will be a man
OF THE
OATHOLIOC
[born] of human parents, and that Elias will come and
onurcH. anoint Him.” And afterwards‘ he advises Justin, if he
[206] Wishes to persuade the Jews and others that Jesus is the
1 ἐννόμως.
2 ipsis-
sima.
3 hypo-
thesi.
4 magis-
tris.
[207]
5 insulsa.
δ deprava-
runt.
Christ, to teach that He is “aman born of human parents,
and that, on account of his living in conformity with the law’
and perfectly, he has been thought worthy to be chosen to be
the Christ.” This indeed was the very? opinion of Ebion
and his earliest followers ; from which, indeed, the Ebionites
of later times turned aside, and went off into various different
opinions about Christ, the greatest number of them em-
bracing a view not unlike the dogma of the Cerinthians, as
we learn from Epiphanius, Heres. xxx. chap. 3. compared
with chap. 17. .
9. But let us return to the passage of Justin which is the
subject of controversy. Surely the last words of it, in which
Justin intimates that the heterodox, whom he had mentioned,
paid more regard to the doctrines of men than to the words
of the prophets and of Christ Himself in the Gospel, not
obscurely point out the Ebionites. For these persons were
so entirely wedded to their notion® of the Christ being
a mere man, which they had received from the Hebrew
doctors ἡ, that they would not allow themselves to be parted
from it either by the predictions of the prophets, or the testi-
monies of the evangelists and of the apostles of Christ, which
most plainly contradicted that notion. Against the predic-
tions of the prophets, which declare the divine glory and
majesty of the Messiah, they shut their eyes and stopped
their ears. With the Jews, by an absurd® interpretation,
they destroyed the force οἵ" the prophetic statement of a
Virgin’s bearing [a Son] °®. And with regard to the Scriptures
of the New Testament, they received only the Gospel of
St. Matthew, rejecting the other three; especially that of
St. John, because he both at the very commencement of his
Gospel, professedly and in the most express terms, declares
the eternal Godhead of our Lord, and also in other passages
throughout records sayings by which Christ Himself asserted
προσδοκῶμεν γενήσεσθαι, καὶ τὸν Ἡλίαν ἐκλεγῆναι εἰς Χριστόν.---Ὁ. 291. [§ 67.
χρίσαι αὐτὸν ἐλθόντα.---ἰ δ 49. p. 145.] p. 164.]
ἃ ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων (γενόμενον), 8. See Iren. i. 26. and iii. 24, [e. 21,
».. kal... διὰ τὸ ἐννόμως καὶ τελέως pp. 215.) Also, Epiphanius, Heeres,
πολιτεύεσθαι αὐτὸν, κατηξιῶσθαι τοῦ Xxx.
not by human teachers, point to the Ebionites. 179
before the Jews His own divine Majesty. Further, also, they omar. vn,
mutilated the Gospel of St. Matthew itself. For cutting off ὃ Ὁ
the first chapter, they began with what took place in the time
of Herod and Caiaphas the high-priest; of course because ᾿ s¢ilicet. "
that chapter contained a most express testimony of Christ’s
birth of the Virgin. Whatever, indeed, in the writings of
the New Testament was plainly repugnant to their dogmas,
which they had drawn out of the puddles’ of the old Rabbis, ἡ lacunis.
this in-every instance they hesitated not utterly to reject
and repudiate. I know not whether it were not the very
shameless impiety of these men that Ignatius also glanced
at, when, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, (in which he
certainly expressly notices the heretics who at that time were
labouring to introduce Judaism into the Churches of the
Gentiles,) he thus writes‘; “I have heard some say, Unless
I find it in the ancients, I believe it not in the Gospel: and
on my saying to them, It is written ; they answered me with,
It is nought, (or, It was laid down before*.)” Here, as I ὃ πρόκειται,
suppose, “the ancients” are the Ox7p, Rabbis, or masters Pr*)3¢**:
and doctors of the Hebrews, who flourished some years before [208]
the coming of our Lord ; and whose traditions‘ and doctrines® * παραδό-
were regarded as oracles by the Jews and those who shared 5 “Biddy
in their madness. The translator has rendered πρόκειται, μᾶτα.
prejacet ; but I do not at all see what that can mean here.
Certainly the Greeks frequently used the verb προκεῖσθαι to
signify, to be flung δ, or thrown away’, or rejected ὃ, as a thing 6 projici.
of no worth or value. So that the meaning of Ignatius seems / ae
here to be, that the persons of whom he is speaking were not
ashamed to avow openly, that they would only believe the
Gospel so far forth as it agreed with the traditions of those
ancient teachers ; and when he refuted the doctrines which
they had had handed down from these masters, out of the
writings of the New Testament which were received by the
Church, they replied that they threw aside and rejected
those Scriptures, as of no authority. In this sense, indeed,
the pseudo-Ignatius seems to have understood the word πρό-
xevrat, for he adds to this passage the following as a sort of
f ἤκουσά τινων λεγόντων, ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ γέγραπται, ἀπεκρίθησάν μοι, ἕτι πρόκει-
ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις εὕρω, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ται.---ῬΡ. 48, 44. edit. Voss. [§ 8. p. 32.]
οὐ πιστεύω" καὶ λέγοντός μου αὐτοῖς, ὅτι
N 2
JUDGMENT
OF THE
“OATHOLIO
CHUROH.
76
[209]
1 ὑπὸ τῶν
ἀρχαίων.
180 The Ebionites did not submit to the authority of the N. T.
commentary of his own!; “It is hard to kick against the
pricks, hard to disbelieve Christ, hard to reject the preaching
ofthe Apostles.” IIpé«cevras may, however, in another and an
exactly opposite meaning, be referred to the opinion main-
tained by these heretics in opposition to the Scriptures
which Ignatius quoted. For the verb κεῖσθαι sometimes
signifies to be laid down as an axiom, that is, in other
words, to be determined, established, and defined; whence
positions themselves are called τὰ κειμένα. In this sense
'προκεῖσθαν is to be previously or beforehand laid down,
determined and defined; and in that way the meaning will
be, that when Ignatius argued against them out of the writ-
ings of the New Testament, the heretics replied, that their
opinion had been determined and established previously,
(before, that is, those Scriptures were sent forth,) to wit, by
the ancients’. In either way there is manifestly indicated
the same foolish veneration of the ancients, the same profane
contempt of the evangelical Scriptures on the part of these
men. This however by the way: I proceed with my subject.
These Ebionites, further, to defend their other dogma of the
perpetual and universal obligation of the ceremonial law of
Moses, rejected all the Epistles of S. Paul *, calling him an
apostate from the law. What then? were not these men,
after all, heretics, and regarded by Justin as heretics? Did
the Church in the time of Justin, or even Justin himself, hold
communion with them ?
‘Credat Judzeus Apella ;
Non ego.
Nay indeed, Justin could not, if he wished, have held com-
munion with the Ebionites; since they refused to hold
communion with Christians from the Gentiles, and were on
that account also rejected by Justin as heretics, as is clear
from the passage of Justin, which we quoted before in this
chapter !.
10. It has now, I think, been sufficiently, and more than
sufficiently proved, that the passage of Justin, cited by Epi-
scopius and the Remonstrants, was altogether in vain alleged by |
i σκληρὸν τὸ πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν, k See Irenzeus and Epiphanius οὐδὲ
σκληρὸν τὸ Χριστῷ ἀπιστεῖν, σκληρὸντὸ = supra.
ἀθετεῖν. τὸ κήρυγμα τῶν ἀποστόλω».---- 1 § 6. [p. 173.]
[p. 81.]
Justin’s statements on the necessity of a right belief. 181
them to prove, that the Church in the times of Justin held
communion with those who denied the divinity of Jesus Christ
our Lord. For from what we have said, it is most evident
that the dogmatisers, whom Justin mentions in this passage,
denied both the divinity of Christ and His birth of a virgin ;
and, in order to maintain their views, deemed it necessary to
reject, and further did in fact impiously and impudently reject,
the most holy Gospels of Christ, which were received by the
Catholic Church, and were daily read in its holy assemblies ;
that is, it was none other than the Ebionites that were meant
by Justin ; who were rejected even by the other Christians of
the circumcision, the Nazarenes, and neither could, nor indeed
were desirous to be admitted to the communion of any
Church of the Gentiles.
11. But to crown the whole, I will add some passages
taken from this very Dialogue with Trypho, from which we
may easily understand further, what was Justin’s own view
respecting the necessity of believing the article of our Lord’s
divinity, and also respecting the Ebionites and others who
denied that article. And, first of all, let us again refer to
that passage, which I have already pointed out more than
once for another purpose, and which may be found in p. 264",
wherein he says, that the belief of such as are saved under
the gospel concerning Christ is that, by which “ they acknow-
ledge this Christ to be the Son of God, who was in being
before the morning star and the moon, and endured to be
incarnate, and born through this Virgin, who was of the
lineage of David ; that by this dispensation the serpent, which
wrought evil from the beginning, and the angels who had
been made like unto him, might be utterly subdued,” &c.
From this it is easy to gather, that Justin certainly did not
regard as Christian faith (that.is, such faith about the Person
of Christ as is sufficient for salvation under the Gospel), the
faith of those who believed in a Christ or Son of God, such
as had no existence before [His birth of] Mary, and who,
further, was not born from Mary a Virgin, but from the
union of Joseph and Mary. At any rate it will be evident
to any one who reads through the passage entire, that Justin
is there giving’ that part of the creed, or rule of faith, which
m [δ 45. p. 141. quoted above, ch. ii, § 14. p. 46.]
OHAP. VII.
εὐ:
[210]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[211]
[212]
1 σέβειν,
colant
atque ado-
rent.
2 τελεταῖς.
77
182 His views and statements respecting heretics ;
relates to the Son of God, and to the dispensation which He
undertook, as it was already in his own time received in the
Church ; the gainsayers of which, therefore, could not but be
regarded as apostates from the rule [of faith], that is, as
heretics, by the Church, and consequently by Justin, who
firmly clave to the Church. This will appear still more
clearly from another passage of Justin, which occurs in the
same Dialogue, p. 253", where he seems to be giving us a
kind of brief summary of the whole work which he had com-
posed in opposition to all heresies. ‘There are, then,” he
says, “and have been many, who having come in the name
of Jesus, have taught atheistical and blasphemous tenets and
practices ; and are [designated] by us from the name of those
men, from whom severally each doctrine and opinion origi-
nated. For some of these in one way, and others in another,
teach men to blaspheme against the Creator of the universe,
and the Christ, who was by Him foretold to be about to
come, and the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob;
with no one of whom do we hold communion, for we know
them to be atheistical and impious and unjust and licen-
tious, only confessing Jesus in name, instead of worshipping
and adoring’ Him. They call themselves Christians too, in
the same manner as the heathen inscribe the name of God
on the works of their own hands, and communicate in licen-
tious and godless rites*. Now of these some are called
Marcionites, and others Valentinians; some again Basilidians,
and others Saturnilians; and others by other names, each of
them being designated after the originator of its doctrine.”
In this passage, Justin is manifestly treating of all heretics
whatever, who had, either in his own age or before, caused
trouble to the Church of Christ; of these he mentions a few
Ὁ εἰσὶν οὖν, καὶ ἐγένοντο πολλοὶ, ὑπάρχοντας, καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ τὸν Ἰησοῦν
οἱ ἄθεα καὶ βλάσφημα λέγειν καὶ
πράττειν ἐδίδαξαν, ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ
προσελθόντεο᾽ καὶ εἰσὶν ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν,
ἀπὸ τῆς προσωνυμίας τῶν ἀνδρῶν, ἐξ
οὗπερ ἑκάστη διδαχὴ καὶ γνώμη ἤρξατο.
ἄλλοι γὰρ κατ᾽ ἄλλον τρόπον βλασφη-
μεῖν τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων, καὶ τὸν
ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ προφητευόμενον ἐλεύσεσθαι
Χριστὸν, καὶ τὸν Θεὸν ᾿Αβραὰμ, καὶ
Ἰσαὰκ, καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ διδάσκουσιν" ὧν οὐδενὶ
κοινωνοῦμεν, οἱ γνωρίζοντες ἀθέους, καὶ
ἀσεβεῖς, καὶ ἀδίκους, καὶ ἀνόμους αὐτοὺς
σέβειν, ὀνόματι μόνον ὁμολογεῖν" καὶ
Χριστιανοὺς ἑαυτοὺς λέγουσιν, ὃν τρόπον
οἱ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ
ἐπιγράφουσι τοῖς χειροποιήτοις, καὶ ἀνό-
μοις καὶ ἀθέοις τελεταῖς κοινωνοῦσι. καὶ
εἰσὶν αὐτῶν οἱ μέν τινες καλούμενοι
Μαρκιανοὶ, οἱ δὲ Οὐαλεντινιανοὶ, οἱ δὲ
Βασιλιδιανοὶ, of δὲ ΣΣατορνιλιανοὶ, καὶ
ἄλλοι ἄλλῳ ὀνόματι, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχηγέτου
τῆς γνώμης ἕκαστος ὀνομαζόμενοϑ. ---
[ὃ 35. p. 182.]
the Ebionites would be-included by him amongst heretics. 183
only by name ; but he adds that there were others also, known cnar. yi.
by other names, each sect having derived its name from ὃ 1"
its own leader; the Carpocratians, for instance, from Carpo- _
crates, the Cerinthians from Cerinthus, the Ebionites from
Ebion, and several others. Now all these heretics, in some
way or other, blasphemed by their teaching either God the
Father, or God the Son, or both; “Some of them,” says
Justin, “in one way, and others in another, teach men to
blaspheme against the Creator of the universe, and the
Christ, who was by Him foretold to be about to come, and
the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob.” And
here it is to be especially observed, that the same Being
is called the Christ and the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and
of Jacob, even He who was foretold by the Creator of the
universe as about to come, that is, the Son of God. For
first, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, is here
manifestly distinguished from the Creator of the universe,
i.e. God the Father. And in the next place, it is very well
known, that Justin throughout this Dialogue teaches, and
further earnestly contends, that it was the Christ or Son of
God who appeared to Moses in the burning bush, and called
Himself the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. Now',! Age jam.
were the Ebionites in no wise blasphemers of Christ, the God
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, when they absolutely denied
that Christ was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? when [218]
they taught that He had no existence at all before Abraham,
nay, before [His birth of ] Mary? when they even presumed
to say and affirm that He was a mere man born of the union
of Joseph and Mary? Moreover, Justin here says, that the
heretics ἀντὶ τοῦ τὸν Ἰησοῦν σέβειν, “instead of worshipping
(or adoring) Him, only confessed Jesus in name.” Are not
these words also aimed at the Ebionites? Surely they are ;
for of what worship or adoration is it that Justin is speaking ὃ
Without doubt, of that worship, which in this Dialogue he
contends to be due to Jesus Christ: in which [Dialogue] he
is intent on proving that our Lord is “both an object of
worship and is God” (καὶ προσκυνητὸν καὶ Θεόν). He is
speaking, without doubt, of that worship which all the
Catholic Christians of his time paid to Christ, who glorified
° See p. 287. [§ 68. p. 166.]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHUROH.
1 χὴν θεο-
λογίαν.
[214]
2 τινῶν,
78
3 >
eis CWTN-
ρίαν.
184 Justin held that they who were reserved for salvation
and adored Him as God together with the Father and the
Holy Ghost, in their hymns and doxologies, as he himself
testifies in the Apology, which is called the Second ?, on
which passage see by all means what we have said in the
Defence of the Nicene Creed, i. 4. 8. [p. 148.] Now did
the Ebionites pay, or could the Ebionites have paid a worship
of this nature to Christ? Surely not. It is certain, there-
fore, that in the list of the heretics with whom the Church
had no communion, and whom the Church rejected as impious
and utterly unworthy of the sacred name of Christians, Justin
included the Ebionites also, and all others who with them
impugned the doctrine of the Divine Nature * of our Saviour.
12. To these, if you wish, you may add a third passage,
which you will meet with in the same Dialogue, p. 2744, where
Justin, on being again challenged by Trypho to do so, proceeds
to shew at length that in the Old Testament there is set forth
throughout by the prophetic Spirit [One that is] God, and
true God too, not improperly so called, who is yet personally
distinct from God the Father of the universe; altogether
understanding this to be Jesus Christ, in whom we believe ;
and he engages moreover to adduce such proofs of this from
the Law and the Prophets, “as none should be able to gain-
say” (πρὸς ἃς ᾿ντειπεῖν μὲν οὐδεὶς δυνήσεται). Concerning
the proofs which he meant to adduce, he then proceeds to
make the following remarks’; ‘ But they will seem strange
to you, although read by you every day; so that even from
this circumstance you may understand, that for your wicked-
ness God hath hidden from you the power of perceiving the
wisdom which is in His words, except some’ to whom,
according the grace of His compassion, He hath left a seed
unto salvation *, as Isaiah saith, that your race also might not
utterly perish like that of Sodom and Gomorrah.” Here, as
every one must see, by those “ some,” who were the only ones
of the Jewish nation left by God as a seed unto salvation, are
meant the Jews who believed in Christ and embraced His
P P. 56. [Apol, i, 6. p. 47.] τὴν ἐν τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ, πλὴν τινῶν
4 [8 55. p. 1δ0.1 οἷς κατὰ χάριν τῆς πολυσπλαγχνίας
ξέναι δέ σοι δόξουσιν εἶναι, καίπερ αὐτοῦ, ὡς ἔφη Ἡσαΐας, ἐγκατέλιπε
καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἀναγινωσκόμεναι ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν᾽ σπέρμα εἰς σωτηρίαν, ἵνα μὴ ὧς Σοδομι-
ὡς καὶ ἐκ τούτου συνεῖναι ὑμᾶς, ὅτι διὰ τῶν καὶ Γομορραίων τέλεον καὶ Td ὑμέτε-
τὴν ὑμετέραν κακίαν ἀπέκρυψεν ὃ Θεὸς ρον γένος ἀπόληται.---[Τ0ϊ4.}
ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν τὸ δυνάσθαι νοεῖν τὴν σοφίαν
out of the Jews, believed Christ to be truly God. 185
doctrine. But with respect to these, Justin clearly enough cmap. yu.
intimates, that they all understood “the wisdom,” or mystery, dhe es
which was contained in the ancient Scriptures, concerning
Christ [as] the Son of God, and also* God: that those there- 1 adeoque.
fore of the Jewish nation, who, whilst professing to believe
in Christ, had not yet discovered that wisdom, either in the [215]
writings of the prophets or even in the mid-day light of the
Gospel, namely, the Ebionites, he certainly did not regard as
belonging to the seed which God had reserved unto salvation,
i.e. true believers or Christians, but rather deemed them fit
to be classed among the reprobate Jews, who were blinded
by the just judgment of God. Compare what we have
observed above " on the ancient Nazarenes, or Christians of
the circumcision at Jerusalem; for that throws light on this
passage of Justin, and is in turn illustrated by it.
5. Chap. ii. 88 9, 11—15.
79
APPENDIX
TO THE SEVENTH CHAPTER.
gupemenT 1, WHEN I had almost completed the foregoing observations |
OF THE
catnouc On this celebrated passage of Justin, I obtained the second
CHURCH.
[216]
1 certa
fide.
volume of M. Simon Episcopius’ Theological Works ; in
which I found a new edition of his Reply to the Specimen
of Calumnies, taken from the Apology of the Remonstrants.
Now in this Reply * the Remonstrant party contend by many
arguments, that from the passage in question it is clear —
“that the ancient and primitive Church of the Christians
held communion with such as believed and professed that
Jesus Christ was nothing else than a mere man, in other
words, a human being [born] of human [parents], and made
the Christ by election.” Some of their arguments they boast
of as being “ most evident ;” whilst others they put forward
as being only “ very probable.” With respect to their argu-
ments of the first kind, what I have already said will have
made it plain to every unprejudiced person, that so far from
being ‘‘ most evident,” they do not even deserve to be con-
sidered as “very probable.” However, we will briefly and
concisely run through these most evident arguments of
Episcopius and the Remonstrants.
2. First, “ Justin,” says Episcopius, “expressly affirms that
it is possible for a person to demonstrate on solid grounds
that Jesus is the Christ of God, in other words, the promised
Messiah, although he should not be able to demonstrate,
that Christ preexisted as the Son of God. Justin, there-
fore, believed that Christ might be held to be the Messiah
and worshipped with sure faith *, even though He were denied
to be the eternal Son of God.” But to this argument we
have given a full and clear answer in vii. 4, 5, [page 166,)
* Oper. Episcopii, vol. ii. part 2. pp. 295, 296.
Episcopius misunderstood the argument of Justin. 187
to which I refer the reader. The source, no doubt, of this appznprx "
error in the case of Episcopius and the Remonstrants, was ἴὸ ἘΠ, 2.
their not observing, that, in the passage before us, Justin is ————
arguing not on his own principles, or from the true state of
the case, but on the hypothesis of the Jews, with whom he is
disputing: although scarcely anything can be more clear
than that such was the fact. Secondly, “ Justin,” continues
Episcopius, “ affirms, that if a person believes that Christ is
only a man born of human parents, and made the Christ by
election, he would only slip through error, and would not be
denying that He was the very Christ. Therefore, he believed
that this error was such as was compatible with that faith,
whereby Christ is, notwithstanding, believed to be the
Messiah, on which he supposes Christianity to hinge.” My
reply to this is, that the antecedent is palpably false. For
Justin does not affirm what Episcopius says that he affirms,
The words of Justin, in which Episcopius dreamt that his
premiss was contained, are the following”; ‘‘ Even though
I should not prove that He” (that is, our Saviour) “ both had
a prior existence, and endured to be born as man, liable to
the same sufferings as ourselves, and possessing flesh accord-
ing to the Father’s will and pleasure, it would be fair to say
only that I was mistaken in this particular” (that is,in my [217]
having affirmed that He preexisted and was born man of a
virgin); “but [it would] not [be fair] ” (that is, in you,
Trypho, a Jew, who expect no other Christ or Messiah than
one who is a mere man, born of a human father and
mother) “ {on that account] to deny that this is the Christ”
(ἐν τούτῳ πεπλανῆσθαί με μόνον λέγειν δίκαιον, ἀλλὰ μὴ
ἀρνεῖσθαι ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός). But see again what
has been advanced in our seventh chapter, δὲ 4 and 5.
Thirdly, Episcopius proceeds to argue further from this
passage of Justin, to this effect; “Justin affirms, that if
this only could be proved, that Jesus is the Christ or Mes-
siah, that alone might be, and ought to be, enough for
a Jew, even though he should not know, or should deny,
or be unable to prove, that Jesus preexisted as the Son of 80
God, and should accordingly affirm, that He is nothing
more than a mere man.” But what the learned writer
> [See the Greek, cited above, p. 164.]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHUROH.
[218]
188 He held the necessity of believing our Lord’s Divinity.
meant by this, I can scarcely discover. Did he mean that
Justin affirms, that if this only were proved to the Jew,
or assented to by him, that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah,
this could be sufficient for his salvation, even if he were
ignorant, or denied, that Jesus preexisted as the Son of God,
and accordingly alleged, that he was only a mere man, born
of human parents? Certainly he must either have meant
this, or he has said nothing to the point. But where, I ask,
has Justin affirmed this? Nay, if such had been his opinion,
it would indeed have been to no purpose that he laboured
and toiled so earnestly in this Dialogue, and collected toge-
ther arguments from every part of the Scriptures of the Old
Testament, to prove to the Jews, and convince them, that it
was foretold of the Christ, or Messiah, that He should be
God, and be born man of a virgin. In vain does he so often
and so sharply rebuke and upbraid the Jews for their refusal
to believe and acknowledge this doctrine, [in vain] does he
charge them with the height of obstinacy, and even go so
far as, occasionally, to deplore and lament over them as
forsaken of God, and blinded by His righteous judgment.
For, as is plain, he did not act sincerely in so doing, because,
if we are to believe Episcopius, his real opinion all the while
was, that it was not at all necessary for the Jews to believe
these doctrines; it was sufficient for their salvation, if they
allowed that Jesus was in any sense the Christ or Messiah.
Would it not then have been better for him to have been
quite silent about these mysteries,—lest, by unseasonably
urging on them a truth that was not necessary, he should
repel them from the belief which was really indispensable ?
But why need I dwell on this? I have already evidently
proved, that Justin, together with the Catholic Church of his
time, regarded as heretics, and aliens from the true and
saving knowledge and faith of Christ, those from among the
Jews who confessed Jesus to be the Christ, but yet denied
His preexistence before the worlds and His birth of a virgin,
that is to say, the Ebionites. The Remonstrants next insist
on these words of Justin, “ For there are certain of our
race,” &c. ΤῸ this, however, we have already given a clear
reply in vii. 6. [page 171.] Such, then, after all are the
arguments which Episcopius and the Remonstrants have put
Episcopius’ way of understanding the chief passage of Justin. 189
forth as “most evident.” With what judgment, and with appanprx —
what good faith, the impartial reader may decide. ei 82, a
3. Let us now proceed to consider the arguments which
are advanced by Episcopius as “ very probable ;” of most of
them I confess that I should never have even dreamt, unless
he had suggested them. He urges, first ; “That those words of
Justin, ‘nor would most people say so, who are of the same
opinion as myself,’ evidently shew, that in the very community
to which Justin belonged, there were a few who were of that
opinion. For he did not say, none would say so of those
who are of the same opinion as myself, (in contradistinction
to the other heretical sects, the Marcionites, Valentinians, &c.,
whom he constantly distinguishes from his own party,) but [219]
avery few only.” Here you have an argument of this kind ;
—Justin’s words, “‘ nor would very many say so, who are of
the same opinion as myself,” shew that, in that very commu-
nity to which Justin belonged, there were some (though only
a few) whose views were such as that they believed, that
Christ was merely a man born of human parents; therefore
the Church in the time of Justin held communion with those
who regarded Christ as a mere man. The conclusion, I admit,
is clearer than the sun. But as for the premises, who, unless
assisted by the spectacles of Episcopius, would discover them
in the words of Justin? The words of Justin are these ; οἷς
οὐ συντίθεμαι' οὐδ᾽ ἂν πλεῖστοι ταὐτά μοι δοξάσαντες εἴποιεν.
This Episcopius construes, as having a partitive signification,
thus; “ Nor would most’ of those, who are of the same! plerique.
opinion as myself, say so°;” altogether incorrectly however ;
for if Justin had meant this, he would have said, οὐδ᾽ ἂν πλεῖ-
OTOL τῶν, OY ἐκ THY, OY ἀπὸ τῶν ταὐτά μοι δοξασάντων εἴποιεν.
Besides, the ταὐτά μοι δοξάσαντες, (“who are of the same
opinion as myself,”) here are evidently those who thought as
Justin did concerning Christ ; namely, that He both preexisted
before the worlds, and was made man of a virgin; and of
these not one certainly would say that Christ was only a man
born of human parents. This, I aver, is clear from the answer
which Trypho makes immediately afterwards ἃ; ‘It appears
to me,” says he, “ that those who hold that He was a man, and
© (Thus both Episcopius and Bull see the note on vii. 2. (p. 164.)]
mistranslated this passage—B, But ᾿ ἃ [See the Greek above, p. 177.]
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
[220]
1 ἐξηγητι-
KOS.
81
190 Bp. Bull’s translation and explanation of it. They who denied
was anointed and made the Christ by election, say what is
more credible than those of you do, who say those things
that thou sayest” (τῶν ταῦτα ἅπερ φὴς λεγόντων). Here,
without doubt, οἱ ταῦτα ὥπερ φὴς λέγοντες, ‘those who say
those things that thou sayest,” are the same as those whom
Justin designates ταὐτά μοι δοξάσαντες, “ [those] who are of
the same opinion as myself.” Now, [those whom Trypho
referred to as] of ταῦτα ὥπερ φὴς λέγοντες, “those who say
those things that thou sayest,” are indisputably those who
agreed with Justin in saying, that Christ both preexisted as
God, and was born as man of a virgin; to whose opinion
Trypho opposes and prefers the opinion of those who “ held,
that He was a man, and was anointed. and made the
Christ by election.” It is therefore evident that the words
[of Justin], ταὐτά por δοξάσαντες, “who are of the same
opinion as myself,’ are added by way of explanation’,
and that the πλεῖστοι, “ most,” is opposed to the τινὲς,
“some,” of the preceding clause: so that Justin’s words
should be explained in the following manner: “ For there
are some, Trypho, of our race (or rather of your nation),
who, while they acknowledge Jesus to be the Christ, still
affirm that He is only a man born of human parents. With
these I do not agree; nor indeed would the great majority of
Christians say so, forasmuch as they entertain the same belief
on these points as I do myself.” Who now would conclude
from this, as Episcopius does, that there were some in the
‘same community of Christians to which Justin was attached,
who were of opinion, that Jesus was a mere man? And to
2 gacris
interesse.
this you may add the observation, which I have already made,
that it would have been impossible for heterodox persons, of
whom Justin is speaking, to have had a place in the assembly
or communion of any Catholic Church; inasmuch as they
denied not only our Lord’s divinity, but even His nativity, as
man, of a virgin; and in order to support both their hypo-
theses, they simply rejected the Gospels, which the Catholic
Church received, and read in its sacred assemblies. Nay, they
who openly denied our Lord’s divinity in Justin’s time, could
not have:taken part? in the sacred services of the Catholics
without a palpable mockery of the Christian worship. For in
the Liturgies of the Catholic Church, as early as Justin’s age,
our Lord’s Divinity could not join in the Church worship. 191
and even from the beginning, our Saviour was worshipped arrsyprx ©
and glorified as God. With respect to his own times, Justin 7? (3""s,
is himself a witness, as we have seen already [p. 184]. And ————
before Justin, Pliny, in his Epistles, book x. epist. χουν, [221]
addressed to Trajan, reports the following from the confession
of apostate Christians; “They affirmed that this was the
sum and substance of their crime or error, that they were
accustomed to assemble before daylight on a stated day, and
to sing together one with another’ a hymn in honour of: dicere
Christ, as God.” These hymns were appealed to, in opposi- 0" ἴα
tion to Artemon, when he impudently rejected as a novelty
the Church’s doctrine of our Saviour’s divinity, by a Catholic
writer, cited in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. v. 28; ψαλμοὶ δὲ ὅσοι
καὶ ὠδαὶ ἀδελφών ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ πιστῶν γραφεῖσαι τὸν λόγον
τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Χριστὸν ὑμνοῦσι θεολογοῦντες. ““ Such psalms
and hymns of the brethren, as have been written from the
beginning by the faithful, celebrate Christ the Word of God,
speaking of Him as God.” So plain, indeed, and express
was the acknowledgment of the divinity of Christ our Lord -
in these hymns, that Paul of Samosata could not bear them
on that account, and actually endeavoured to put them out’? climi-
of the Churches that were subject to his jurisdiction, as the"
fathers of Antioch assert in their Synodical Epistle in Euse-
bius, Eccl. Hist. vii. 30.
4. The second of these arguments, which Episcopius judged
to be very probable, is to this effect ; “ The words, ‘ of our
race,’ seem to intimate a closer relation and communion of
faith, than one which only goes so far as the name and
external profession of Christianity. For of these very per-
sons, whom Justin designates as of his own race, he affirms,
that they do not deny Him to be the Christ, or that it-does
not follow from their opinion, that Jesus is not the Christ.”
But this argument is made up of two, which we have already
refuted separately. Respecting the words, “of our race,”
see again vii. 6. [p. 171.] And as for the reason, which
Episcopius subjoins, we have also, in vii. 4, 5, and again [222]
in this Appendix, § 2, shewn it to be a gross delusion of
his own.
5. Then comes the third argument: “In the next place,
it ought not,” he says, “to appear very strange, that Justin
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHUROH.
[223]
1 eerebello.
82
192 Justin considered Socrates, &c. Christians ; answered ;
accounted those who held Christ to be a mere man, to be mem-=
bers of his Church; seeing that he accounted even Socrates
and Heraclitus to be Christians, who lived with Christ, the first-
begotten of God: as Scultetus himself expressly states, out
of Justin, in his analysis of the Apology for the Christians,
presented to Antoninus Pius the emperor, (that is, Justin’s
work.)” A strange argument indeed, foreign to the subject,
and very far-fetched! But I reply: In what I have written
above, I have clearly shewn, that they who out of those that
professed the Christian name, did not hold and worship Christ
as the true God, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob,
were placed by Justin in the number of impious heretics, with
whom neither he himself, nor the Catholic Church of Christ,
had any communion. And with respect to those heterodox
persons, who are alluded to in the passage in question, I
have already made it clear, that they were, on more than one
ground, regarded as heretics by Justin and all Catholics. So
that were that true, which Episcopius adduces out of Scul-
tetus, that Justin regarded Socrates and Heraclitus as true
Christians, all that will follow from it is, that the holy man
entertained a better opinion of Socrates and Heraclitus than
he did of those heretics. And it ought not to seem very
strange, if Justin thought and hoped better things of heathens,
who, destitute of divine revelation, worshipped one God the
Creator of all things, according to the small measure of their
light and knowledge, and followed after virtue (as he thought
Socrates and Heraclitus had done), than of those who, though
they boasted of being Christians, impiously and shamelessly
rejected the very first principles of their religion, most clearly
handed down by Christ Himself and His Apostles, [a religion]
divinely revealed, and abundantly confirmed by so many and
so great miracles, on the ground, forsooth, that they could
not with their own shallow brain’ comprehend the modes
and reasons of them. !
But when Justin, in what is called his Second Apology®,
calls Socrates and Heraclitus Christians, he does not mean
that they were such in an absolute and perfect sense, but in
part only, so far, that is, as, following the guidance of right
reason, they despised the idols of the heathen, and acknow-
e P. 83. [Apol. i. § 10. p. 95.]
᾿ Justin's opinion of virtuous heathens. on). ΆΒΗΝ
ledged and worshipped one. God the Father of all, as did the
Christians ; and, moreover, both taught in their writings and,
to a certain extent, set forth in their conduct many principles,
bearing on moral virtue, which were excellent and agreeable
to the Christian religion. For it is a doctrine of Justin, that
APPENDIX
TO CHAP.
vir. ὃ 5.
the reason, which is inherent in every man, is as it were :
“a seed” (σπέρμα) and “a portion” (μέρος) of “the Divine
Word” or “ Reason” (τοῦ θείου Λόγου), that is, of Christ,
whom he therefore designates “the whole Reason” (τὸν
πάντα λόγον) ; and, consequently, that the Gentile philoso-
_phers, who before the coming of Christ conformed their
doctrines and their conduct to the rule of the reason that
was implanted in them, were so far Christians ; although those
alone are Christians in an absolute sense, who are taught,
and who embrace, that divine appointment and system of
teaching of the whole Reason, that is, of Christ Himself,
‘which is delivered in the Gospel, and is certainly far more
excellent than any human philosophy. This Justin in part
intimates in that very passage of the Second Apology which
Scultetus referred to, wherein he thus writes‘; “We have been
taught, that Christ is the First-begotten of God, and we have
before shewn that He is the Word, or Reason, of which all
the race of man participates ; and they who have lived with!
Reason are Christians,” &c. But Justin unfolds his meaning
more fully in the Apology which is placed first in the
common editions; where, speaking of certain philosophers
among the Gentiles, who incurred the hatred of their country-
men because they delivered some noble precepts on morals,
“through the seed of the Word, or Reason, which is im-
planted in the whole race of man” (διὰ τὸ ἐμφύτον παντὶ
γένει ἀνθρώπων σπέρμα τοῦ λόγου), and adducing the exam-
ples, of Heraclitus again, and also of one Musonius, who
flourished in his own times, he immediately adds"; “ For, as
we have intimated, all those who in any way whatever are
studious to live according to Reason, and to avoid moral evil,
the demons have always striven to make objects of hatred.
£ τὸν Χριστὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ Θεοῦ 5. P. 46. [Apol. ii. 8. p. 94.]
εἶναι ἐδιδάχθημεν, καὶ προεμηνύσαμεν h ὡς γὰρ ἐσημάναμεν, πάντας τοὺς
λόγον ὄντα, οὗ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων κἂν ὁπωσδήποτε κατὰ λόγον βιοῦν σπου-
μετέσχε" καὶ of μετὰ λόγου βιώσαντες, δάζοντας καὶ κακίαν φεύγειν, μισεῖσθαι
Χριστιανοί εἰσι, κ. Ἀ. --- [ΑΡΟΪ. i. 46. ἀεὶ ἐνέργησαν οἱ δαίμονες. οὐδὲν δὲ θαυ-
p. 71.] ᾿μαστὺν, εἰ τοὺς [μὴ] κατὰ σπερματικοῦ
BULL.— J. © 0. O
[224]
1 μετά.
1
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
194. The need of external Divine Revelation.
And it is not at all to be wondered at, if the demons, being
convicted [by them], exert themselves much more that they
may be hated who [frame their lives|‘, (not) according to a
1 σπερματι- portion of the implanted reason’, but according to the know-
κοῦ λόγου
μέρος.
[225]
ledge and contemplation) of the whole Reason, that is, Christ.”
Here you see in what sense Justin called Heraclitus, and
such as were like him, Christians,—namely, inasmuch AS THEY
_ FRAMED THEIR LIVES ACCORDING TO A PORTION OF THE IM-
2 native.
3 πανταχό-
θεν.
PLANTED REASON, AND IN ANY WAY WHATEVER LIVED ACCORDING
TO REASON, AND WERE STUDIOUS TO AVOID MORAL EVIL; whom
on this account he severs by a very wide interval from real
Christians, WHO LIVE ACCORDING TO THE KNOWLEDGE AND CON-
TEMPLATION OF THE WHOLE REASON AND WORD, THAT 15,
Curist. But if any one supposes that Justin thought that
man can by the sole power of his inborn? reason attain to
such a knowledge of God, as is sufficient to obtain eternal life
and happiness in heaven, let him hear what he says for
himself in his Hortatory Address to the Gentiles, which ends
with these words*; “ From every consideration®, therefore,
we must know that by no other means is it possible to learn
respecting God, or right. religion, than from the prophets
alone, who instruct you! through Divine inspiration.” He
- likewise says in express terms, in the Epistle to Diognetus™;.
[226]
“ΝΟ one of men has either seen or come to know [God];
but He has Himself revealed Himself; and He has revealed
Himself through faith, to which alone it has been granted
to see God.” | ; ,
6. I come now to the fourth and last argument of Hpisco-
pius, which is to this effect; “If any one,” he says, “ care-
fully reads the writings of
λόγου μέρος, ἀλλὰ κατὰ Thy τοῦ παντὸς
λόγου, ὅ ἐστι Χριστοῦ, γνῶσιν καὶ θεω-
ρίαν, πολὺ μᾶλλον μισεῖσθαὶ οἱ δαίμονες
ἐλεγχόμενοι évepyodatv.—[ Ibid. }
i The learned author in a marginal
note suggested that βιοῦν σπουδάζον-
τας is to be supplied here from what
preceded, after Sylburg’s note on the
passage. On this, however, see my
observation on this passage of Justin
in p.20 of the most recent Oxford
edition, num. 2.—GraBz.
ὁ [The negative [μὴ], which is al-
lowed to be necessary to the sense, but
Justin, and especially that —
is notin the MSS., has been inserted. ]
Κ πανταχόθεν τοίνυν εἰδέναι προσήκει, ᾿
ὅτι οὐδαμῶς ἑτέρως περὶ Θεοῦ ἢ τῆς
ὀρθῆς θεοσεβείας μανθάνειν οἷόν τε ἢ
παρὰ τῶν προφητῶν μόνον, τῶν διὰ τῆς
θείας ἐπιπνοίας διδασκόντων ὑμᾶ.---
p. 37. [p. 35.]
1 [ὑμᾶς. ἡμᾶς, “us,” as in the Bene-
dictine edition, is better.—B. ]
™ ἀνθρώπων δὲ οὐδεὶς (τὸν Θεὸν) οὔτε
εἶδεν, οὔτε ἐγνώρισεν" αὐτὸς δὲ ἑαυτὸν
ἐπέδειξεν" ἐπέδειξε δὲ διὰ πίστεως, ἧ μόνῃ
Θεὸν ἰδεῖν συγκεχώρηται.---Ὁ. 499. [ὃ 8.
p. 238.] ;
Argument that Christ is distinguished from the Creator. 195
Dialogue which is entitled Trypho, will see that Justin does aprznprx”
indeed acknowledge Christ to be God and Lord, but through- wa τ 5, δ.
out denies that He is the Creator of the universe, and further
asserts Him to be another than the Creator of the universe,
distinct and different from Him, not only in person, but in 83
nature, although not in will’. This being the case, it obvi-* γνώμῃ,
ously ought not to seem strange if he reckoned ‘ of his own
race’ [or class] those who believed that He had no existence
prior to all other things, nor was created and made in the
beginning, but was begotten and born, in time, of human
parents. For there is not so huge a difference between those
opinions, as that a schism should be made on account of
them. For on both sides Christ is held to be a created
being, and the question is simply about the time, when He
began to exist.””. My answer to all this is, Wonderful disco-
very*! what is the meaning of the words; “ Justin through-? Pap2 !
out denies that Christ is the Creator of the universe”? Did
Episcopius mean by these words, that Justin denies that all
created things were brought into being out of nothing by
Christ, that is to say, by the only-begotten Son of God, who
was in being before all ages, who after His incarnation
received the name of Christ? But this is utterly untrue.
For Justin, on the contrary, throughout ascribes the creation
of all things to the Son of God, as a work common to Him
with God the Father. Thus, for instance, in the Apology
which in the editions is called the First, after speaking of
God the Father, he subjoins the following words respecting
the Son"; ‘ But His Son, who alone is properly*® called Son, * κυρίως.
the Word who before all created things both was in being [227]
with Him and was begotten of Him, when in the beginning
He created and set in order all things through Him,” &c.
In like manner, in his Dialogue with Trypho°, he says; ,
But this Offspring, which was really and indeed‘ put forth ¢ τῷ ἔντι.
by the Father, was in being with the Father before all the
creatures, and with Him the Father holds converse,” that
is to say, in those words which he had quoted a little before,
* ὁ δὲ vids ἐκείνου, ὁ μόνος Aeyduevos. 2. § 1.)]
κυρίως vids, ὁ λόγος πρὸ τῶν ποιημάτων 9 ἀλλὰ τοῦτο τὸ τῷ ὄντι ἀπὸ τοῦ Πα-
καὶ συνὼν καὶ γεννώμενος, ὅτε τὴν ἀρχὴν τρὸς προβληθὲν γέννημα πρὸ πάντων τῶν
δι᾽ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε καὶ ἐκόσμησε, κ.λ. ποιημάτων συνῆν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ τούτῳ ὁ
—p. 44. [ΑΡο]. ii. 6. p.92. (See the Πατὴρ προσομιλεῖ. --- p. 285. [8 62.
Defensio Fidei Nicewens, book iii. ch. _p. 159.]
02
JUDGMENT
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
196 Justin does not distinguish the Son from the Father in nature.
“Let Us make man,” &c. In the Epistle to Diognetus also”,
he teaches that the Son of God is not “ an inferior minister”
(ὑπηρέτην twa), “but the very Framer and Creator of the
universe Himself” (ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν τεχνίτην καὶ δημιουργὸν
τῶν ὅλων). Did then Episcopius take the [words], “ the
_ Creator of the universe,” in a personal sense, as they say, in
1 πηγὴ
θεότητος.
so far forth as “the Creator of the universe” is a title of
God the Father, in that He is “the fountain of Godhead’,”
and indeed of all the divine operations? If this were his
meaning, we allow that Justin denies (as also the Catholic
Church has always denied) that Christ is God the Father. This
_ dogma has been condemned by the Church in each several age,
[228]
in the case of heretics of divers names. But Episcopius goes
on to add, that Justin throughout asserts that Christ (that is,
in His more excellent nature, in which He existed before the
worlds) is another than the Creator of the universe, 7.e. than
God the Father, and is distinct and different from Him, not
in person only, but also in nature, and consequently is
nothing more than a mere creature. Certainly, he who
seriously ascribes this heresy to Justin cannot be supposed
to have ever accurately read the writings of this excellent
father. For Justin is so far from asserting throughout that
Christ is different from God the Father in nature, and so a
mere created being, that I am quite sure that no single
passage can be produced out of his writings in which he
makes such an assertion. On the contrary, in the passages
which have just been quoted from the First Apology and
from the Dialogue with Trypho, he manifestly distinguishes
the Word; or Son of God, as being [the Son of God] properly
so.called, that is to say, the true and natural Son of God,
from the creatures and all things that have been made by
God, and ascribes to the former an existence coeternal with
God the Father. And in the passage which has been
adduced from the Epistle to Diognetus, he expressly denies
that the Son of God is “an inferior minister” (ὑπηρέτην),
that is to say, a created being. But in what sense Justin has
in other passages, with other primitive fathers, designated —
the Son of God as the ὑπηρέτης, or “ minister,” of God the
Father, and further has attributed to Him an economy by no
p P, 498. [§ 7. p..287.]
He teaches the Eternity and Consubstantiality of the Son. 197
means suited to the majesty of God the Father ; namely, that arrensrx
whereby He frequently, from the beginning of the world, ἐπ ὁ 6, 7.
came down on earth, and in a visible shape held converse ————
with holy men, we have fully explained in our Defence of
the Nicene Creed, iv. 2. 2. [p.572,] and also in chap. 3.
δ΄ 4, 5. [p.598.] Further, in the same Epistle to Diognetus4,
the Son of God is called by Justin, 6 del, σήμερον vids λογισ-
θεὶς, “the Ever-existing, who to-day~is accounted a Son.”
In like manner, in his Hortatory Address" to the Gentiles,
Justin observes, that the Angel, who appeared to Moses in the
bush, and whom he always maintains to have been the Son
of God, called Himself τὸν ὄντα, “He that is’;” and then ' the
expressly remarks that such a designation “suits the ever-—
existing God” (τῷ del ὄντι Θεῷ προσήκειν). Surely; the man
who thus wrote never dreamt of the Son of God as a created
being.
7. Lastly, the holy martyr throughout asserts the consub-
stantiality of the Son, although he nowhere uses the very
word [in speaking] of the Son of God; affirming that He is
the true, real, and genuine Son of God, begotten of the very
substance of the Father; and that He on that account is very
God Himself’, together with God the Father, as I have clearly 5 Deus
shown in the Defence of the Nicene Creed, ii. 4, I will here *PS""*
recall, briefly and .1π a few words, two passages only, which Ted
were in that work drawn out more at length; from which it
will become clearer than noonday, in what sense Justin asserted
that the Son of God was another than God the Father. The
former passage you find in the First Apology; “For they who 84
say that the Son is the Father, are convicted of neither knowing
the Father, nor of being aware that the Father of all things
has a Son, who, being likewise the first-begotten Word of
God, is also God.’? Here you observe that Justin teaches
that the Son is indeed in such wise another than the Father,
that He is not the Father Himself, but is a distinct Person
from Him; but yet is not another than the Father in nature,
inasmuch as, from the very fact that He is begotten οἵ" God
the Father, and that of the Father’s mind, as His Λόγος,
oe
ex.
4 Near the end. [§ 11. p. ἘΠῚ στάμενοι, μήθ᾽ ὅτι ἐστὶν υἱὸς τῷ Πατρὶ
ΟΣ Pp. 19, 20. [ὃ 20, 21. p, 21. τῶν ὅλων ywookovtes’ bs καὶ λόγος
5 of γὰρ τὸν υἱὸν Πατέρα φάσκοντες πρωτότοκος dv τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Θεὸς ὑπάρ-
εἶναι, ἐλέγχονται μήτε τὸν Πατέρα ἐπι- χει.---Ὁ. 96. [ὃ 63. p. 81.]
198 Justin on those who denied the Son to be truly God ;
guvement (“ Reason,” or “ Word,”) He is Himself also God. For it is
camnorzo Upossible but that the Λόγος, the “ Reason,” or “ Word,” of
cuurcy. the first and eternal mind, that is, of God the Father, should
1 or, “of be homogeneous and co-essential’ with [the Father] Himself;
the same , and, accordingly, the primitive fathers all? employ this very
essence.” yeasoning to establish the true divinity of the Son. But the
epee reader will, in passing, observe with me, that from this single
passage it is clear enough, what Justin’s view was of those who
taught that Christ was a mere man,—not the first-begotten
Son of God, who is also Himself God. For he here expressly
pronounces, that such as deny the Son to be very God, per-
sonally distinct from God the Father, do not even know God
the Father, that is, are aliens from true religion and salvation.
For it is well known that the phrase of “not knowing the
Father,” both in the Scriptures and in the writings of the
[230] ancient fathers, has the same meaning as being destitute of
the-saving knowledge of God the Father. Τὴ this sense the
Apostle John (as I have already remarked elsewhere),- in
speaking of heretics of his own time, who denied that Christ
was the only-begotten Son of God, declares, “‘ Whosoever
denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father,” 1 John ii.
23. In order, however, that the meaning of Justin in this
' passage may be more clearly perceived, it is to be noticed
that in the preceding words Justin had been speaking of the
Jews, who maintained that He who appeared to Moses at the
bush in the shape of an angel, and said, “1 am that I am,”
“the God of Abraham,” &c., was not the Son of God, but
God the Father Himself. For the Jews refused to acknow-
ledge and worship any Son of God, who is Himself also God;
flattering themselves in this their obstinacy on the ground
that they religiously worshipped one God the Father, and
were under no necessity of worshipping any other. These,
Justin shews, are deservedly convicted, both by the prophetic
Spirit, that is, of the Old Testament, and by Christ Himself, —
as not knowing even God the Father. Then he takes occa-
sion from this, in the passage we have cited, to pass, as it
seems to me, to heretical Christians, and by the way notes
those who taught that the Son of God is God the Father
Himself, (a heresy in which some were involved in Justin’s
times, and after Justin’s times Praxeas, Noetus; Sabellius,
on those who confounded the Son with the Father. 199
and others were,) agreeing in this respect with the Jews, that arpzynrx
they acknowledged no Son of God personally distinct from οἷν ¢'7. ἃ,
God the Father, who was begotten of God the Father Him--———
self, and so was Himself God. Of these therefore, as well as
of the Jews, he declares that they knew not even God the
Father; in other words, that, whatever they pretended, they
were altogether destitute of the saving knowledge of God.
Unquestionably, after the Gospel of Christ has been preached
and most fully revealed by the Apostles, no one can now
worship God the Father duly’ and savingly’, unless at the 1 rite.
same time he worship and reverence God the Son also. Does eo
not this passage of Justin, therefore, just as much strike those [231]
who taught that Christ was nothing more than mere man,
or even a mere created being? Certainly it dues; for these
teachers did not, any more than the Jews or the heretics of
whom we were speaking, acknowledge the Son of God in
Justin’s sense, ([as one 1.6.1 who, because He «is the Λόγος,
or first-begotten “ Word” of God, is Himiself also God).
Let it, however, be sufficient to have observed this point
briefly in passing. |
8. I proceed to the second passage of Justin, in which he
treats, apparently of set purpose *, of the distinction of the ὅ veluti ex
Son of God from God the Father. The passage occurs in nes
that very Dialogue with Trypho to which Episcopius espe-
cially appealed. In this place also he is stating the opinion
of some, who taught that the Son of God is not a subsisting
being, distinct from the Father, but only “ the power which
is from the Father of all things” (τὴν δύναμιν παρὰ τοῦ
Πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων). To their heresy he goes on to oppose the
Catholic opinion in the following words *; “ This power, which
the word of prophecy* calls both God (as has been also proved * sermo
at length,) and Angel, is not reckoned [another] only in name, i a
as is the light of the sun, but is even numerically distinct,
(ἀριθμῷ ἕτερον, ‘another thing in number,’) as I have in
what goes before also briefly explained the matter, having said
that this power was generated from the Father by His power
and will, but not in the way of abscission, as if the Father’s
* καὶ ὅτι δύναμις αὕτη, ἣν καὶ Θεὸν ἀριθμεῖται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν τί
καλεῖ ὁ προφητικὸς λόγος, [ὡς] διὰ πολ- ἐστι, καὶ ἐν τοῖς προειρημένοις διὰ βρα-
λῶν ὡσαύτως ἀποδέδεικται, καὶ ἄγγελον, χέων τὸν λόγον ἐξήτασα, εἰπὼν τὴν
οὐχ ὡς τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φῶς ὀνόματι μόνον δύναμιν ταύτην γεγεννῆσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ
200 Episcopius virtually admits that those who said that Christ
gupement essence were divided into portions, (οὐ κατ᾽ ἀποτομὴν, ὡς
τρί ἀπομεριζομένης τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς ovcias,) as all other things
cuvroH. when divided and cut, are not the same as they were previous
: to their being divided. And for the sake of illustration,
I took the fires which are as it were lighted from a fire,
' ἕτερα. which we see are distinct ', while that from which many may
be lighted is not diminished, but remains the same.” Here
Justin plainly teaches, that the Son is “ numerically distinct,”
ἀριθμῷ ἕτερον, “ another thing in number,” or in person,
from the Father, but not different in nature; inasmuch as He
[232] is begotten of the very essence of God the Father, (not indeed
7 _ bya cutting or partition of the divine essence, but by a simple
85 communication of it; some such communication as there
is in the case of fire, between the fire which produces another,
without any loss or diminution of itself, and the fire itself
which is produced,) and accordingly is a Son consubstantial
with God His Father, and true God equally with Him. See
what we have further noted on this passage of Justin in the
Defence of the Nicene Creed, ii. 4. § 3,4. [p.1387.] Now from
all this it is clear, that, between the opinion of Justin, and
that of those who taught that Christ was only a man born
of human parents, there is the widest difference. For on
the one side Christ is held to be a mere created being, nay
nothing more than a simple man; and on the other, He is _
declared to be the Son of God, coessential with God His
2 ipsissi- Father, and consequently very God in the highest sense’.
re 9. After these arguments (which indeed are scarcely worthy
of a man of sense, who is even slightly acquainted with the
* consecta- writings of Justin,) Episcopius subjoins a corollary ἧ, in which,
Tan quod: +f he is mistaken, the whole of his preceding argument, even
on his own admission, will fall to the ground. For from what -
he had previously said, he concludes, “that Justin did not
mean the Ebionites by those OF HIS OWN RACE.” But how
did he arrive at this conclusion? ‘It is,” he says, “ by no
means probable that Justin meant those persons by this
pee, not only because he has nowhere in his writings
πατρὸς, Susie καὶ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ δείγματος χάριν παρειλήφειν τὰ ὡς ἀπὸ
οὐ κατ ᾿ ἀποτομὴν, ἁ ὡς ἀπομεριζομένης τῆς πυρὸς ἀναπτόμενα πυρὰ, [ἃ] ἕτερα ὁρῶμεν,
ποῦ πατρὸς ουσίας, ὁποῖα τὰ ἄλλα πάντα οὐδὲν ἐλαττούμενου ἐκείνου ἐξ οὗ ava-
μεριζόμενα καὶ εμνόμενα οὐ τὰ αὐτά φθῆναι πολλὰ δύνανται, ἀλλὰ ταὐτοῦ
ἐστιν ἃ καὶ πρὶν τμηθῆναι" καὶ παρα- μένοντος.---». 358. [ὃ 128. p. 221.]
was ὦ mere man, were not in the communion of the Church. 901
mentioned the Ebionites, but also because they seem to have -apprnprs
been the dregs of mankind; seeing that their teacher 18. τὴ “τς Ὁ,
reported to have heaped calumnies on the Apostle Paul, to —
have charged Peter with lies, and to have called" him in part’
a Jew, an Essene, a Nazarene, a Cerinthian, a Carpocratian; —
and who moreover, as Eusebius testifies, Eccl. Hist. iii. 27, [233]
believed, that Christ was born of the union of Joseph and
Mary, and taught that the ceremonies of the law of Moses
- were to be observed: so that it is utterly improbable that
Justin should speak of them as‘ of his own race.’ ””? Thus does
Episcopius admit that it is utterly improbable that Justin
should have accounted the Ebionites to be of his own race;
(so far, that is, as this expression was thought by | Episcopius]
himself to indicate close union and community of faith;) on
the ground of their being the dregs of mankind and teaching
many impious opinions. But who does not perceive, that —
by this admission the learned man has in fact destroyed his
own cause? For that Justin is speaking of no other than the
Ebionites, I have already most clearly shewn. But it is also
strange what Episcopius could mean, when he proves from
Eusebius that the Ebionites believed Christ to have been
born of the union of Joseph and Mary, from that concluding
that Justin is certainly not speaking of the Ebionites. As
if, indeed, Justin had not manifestly intimated, that the
heretics, of whom he speaks, taught that Christ was “ a human
being begotten of human parents” (dvOpwrov ἐξ ἀνθρώπων
γεννηθέντα). What! was Episcopius ignorant of the meaning
of these words? Does not a person, who says that Christ is
a human being begotten of human parents, in effect say, that
Christ was born of the union of a man and a woman (that is,
of Joseph and Mary)? Surely, He who was conceived and |
formed in the womb of a pure virgin by the Holy Ghost, ~
without the cohabitation of man, cannot be said to be a
human being born of human parents. Moreover, what is
meant by Christ being a man born of human parents, is
clearly set forth throughout this Dialogue of Justin with
Trypho. For in it Trypho at great length ridicules the faith
" T nowhere find that Ebion called Jew, an Essene, &c., Epiphanius in-
Peter partly a Jew, an Essene, ὅδ. forms us, Heeres, xxx,
But that Ebion was himself partly a
202 -The Birth from the Virgin denied by the Ebionites.
supement Of Christians respecting Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary,
OF THE
: CATHOLIC
cuuRcH-- about Perseus being born of the virgin Danae by the descent
[234] of Jove upon her in the form of gold, and then subjoining* ;
86
[235]
!
putting it on the same level with the fables of the Greeks
* And you ought to be ashamed to say the same as they, and
should rather say that this Jesus was a human being, begotten
of human parents.” Must not every one see what is the
meaning of the phrase, “a human being begotten of human
parents,” in this place? In another passage of the same Dia-
logue, Justin himself proves out of the ancient prophets, that
Christ was to be born of a virgin, and thence concludes’,
“that the Christ is not a human being [born] of human
parents, begotten after the ordinary manner of men.” Lastly,
in this very passage in question, Justin shews clearly enough,
what was meant by the heretics who said, that Christ was
a man born of human parents. For in the very outset of the
paragraph he declares this to have been his own, that is, the
Catholic, opinion respecting Christ our Lord ’, “ that He both
existed previously as the Son of the Creator of all things,
being God, and also was born man of the Virgin.” After this —
he subjoins the opinion of the heretics as contrary to the
Catholic doctrine, namely, that Christ was “a human being
born-of human beings.” Whence it is clear, that those
heretics departed from the Catholic view in two respects ; in
that they taught, 1. That Christ is man only, not the Son of
God existing previous to [His birth of] Mary; 2. That
Christ is a human being begotten of human beings, not born
of the Virgin Mary by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost.
Surely from this and other like evidences we may conclude,
that Episcopius and the Remonstrants read this passage of
Justin, about which they have made so much noise, most
hastily at first, (carried away no doubt by the sound of words,
which seemed at the first hearing to be manifestly favourable
to their preconceived hypothesis,) and further that they had
not afterwards accurately weighed either the preceding or the
* καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ αὐτὰ ἐκείνοις λέγοντες γεννηθείς.---ἰ8 54. p. 150.) :
αἰδεῖσθαι ὀφείλετε, καὶ μᾶλλον ἄνθρωπον * ὅτι καὶ προῦπῆρχεν vids τοῦ ποιητοῦ
ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενόμενον λέγειν τὸν η- τῶν ὅλων, Θεὸς ὧν, καὶ γεγέννηται ἄν-.
σοῦν τοῦτου- —p. 291. [8 6, 7. p.164.] θρωπος διὰ τῆς παρθένου.---[Ὁ18]. cum
Υ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐξ Tryph. § 48. p.144.]
ἀνθρώπων, κατὰ τὸ κοινὸν τῶν ἀνθρώπων
Conclusion. 203
following words, nay, nor even the very words themselves. appznvrx
_ Be that however as it may, it is most certain that it is alto- 7,"
gether in vain that these learned men have alleged the
_ passage for the purpose of proving that “the ancient and
primitive Christian Church held communion with those who
believed and professed that Christ Jesus is nothing more than
a mere man, in other words, a human being born of human
beings, and that He was made the Christ by election.”
To the most holy and undivided Trinity, God the Father
and His consubstantial and coeternal Word and Son,
incarnate for our Salvation, together with the Holy Ghost
the Comforter; be ascribed by angels and by men all
praise, honour, and glory, for ever and ever, Amen.
THE END.
e
ΝΠ
- Nelson's title of this work [see his Life of Bp. Bull, p. 888,]}
, puns thus :—
“The primitive and apostolical Tradition of the Doctrine received in the
Catholic Church, concerning the Divinity of our Saviour Jesus Christ,
asserted and evidently demonstrated against Daniel Zwicker the
Prussian, and his late Followers in England.”
THE
PRIMITIVE AND APOSTOLIC
TRADITION
OF
THE DOCTRINE RECEIVED IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH,
ΤΗΝ ALY EN EY
OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST,
SET FORTH, AND CLEARLY PROVED
IN OPPOSITION TO
DANIEL ZWICKER, a Prussian,
AND HIS RECENT FOLLOWERS IN ENGLAND.
BY
GEORGE BULL, D.D.
On OF ROT RATE,
i
+d A! ἜΝ a see
oma ὋΣ coe oe ΠΥ ὀμνιβαμμι ἃ
5 ee yi ἐξ ‘ a. - om =. a tue ᾿ Ν oy
ie eee TOR oe ee ate bly υρικδαείο, eh etc
ἢ ἦν ta, iff
vga pea”
> oS Oe. uae see e's EN? erent fey: leks Ἂς ey ᾽ by he SS oe feat coe
ἂν 4 .“Ἰ, a hs ‘ re 5 Ν of * Vo ae
; TAIN Spy ace ie ἃ ie 44 i ii
- La
, να r , μόδα =
ua ed Rlaglh Methane τ wae λα = vent Ἐν τῷ τῆς
΄
μὰν: vie Te ταδὶ ἐσ ΝΣ ΤΆ he ἄτα AE Re
Nisa er τα μῶν ἦν anion oe
πος ς ΚΠ ἃ “aU ἃ ὐδπλα *
Fy ὶ na viv ¥ ewe ice x " ie if ΣΌΣ, ἐπ Χ
SURED OE ST ΣΟ ΧΕ ΕΙΣ, Bers PER
j bs! ibe
aes eae ALE LIE Oa
' 2.5) ‘ae : < ἥ :
= : : δ - Ἔ κω
HEADS OF THIS TREATISE.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ‘ : : he Se ‘ . 209
CHAPTER I.
That Justin was not the first to introduce into the Christian Churches
the doctrine of our Saviour’s preexistence before the foundation of the
world, and of the creation of all things by Him . . . 212
CHAPTER II.
That Justin was not misled by the deceptions of the Simonians, and
that the doctrine of the Son’s Divinity did not arise from the School
of Simon, : C : : ‘ ‘ ‘ » 2380
CHAPTER III,
Concerning Hegesippus, and his opinion of the Person of Jesus Christ . 236
CHAPTER IY.
On the Orphic Verses, and (by the way) on the Sibylline Oracles, quoted
in opposition to the heathen by Justin and other ancient writers . 251
CHAPTER Υ͂.
That Justin did not learn what he has advanced about the Word, in the
school of Plato . . . , > 4 ‘ . 268
CHAPTER VI.
That Justin abhorred from his heart the Pagan religion and the wor-
ship of a plurality of Gods. That the argument, with which Justin
and other ancient writers maintained the Divinity of Christ, derived
from the really divine worship which is allowed Him in the Holy
Scriptures, is altogether invincible ‘ , ‘ R . 279
URE Sa τ τα ἐν. Ἢ notelia zs ede Rests a pr τά
«iE SACS aia test Ene, ate τὸ ant Ua We
‘Siege ea vara mG arta eas
“atone a i: te
ae ὼς peo hagle ory te dodzeeack- eat anh Soutie iva ΤΑῸΝ ΠῚ
αἰ ρας ᾿ Ys ont sin a) Ang ia 4 aetut Ait ais wii isk " ea) weit tn hank: eh
ee, Sea
aS ir ὧν ΠῚ Ὁ Ἀοβιᾷ fi ae ations ats Be ἃ
ph alae ey aa CARH.
ἐπ ΕΝ ἀμ Tag tt) ὑσὶ γ᾿. (Tae αὐδῇ, sah bien rer}
: ΒΑ ἢ ἐδαϊυ θῶ σαί. Lins iba oh aed adhe 4
β 5 “᾽ν
ae AY AAD ν-: yf? ,
nie Ὁ} Μὰ εὐ πα Hpi wal ἐξ Ω Sa sit amie oh ie
aan ν Po 4 ξ 5s , > ἐς ἜΜ, ὰ “ΜῈ
« Ἴ ὡς t
ἢ a % a
Φ - Ἀ 4
ae) 1 Ka Tare ne j
wih ath Sita a ie Wea aia iad. tik epi? sirbeael Ti ined “π᾿
fle iar ope fh, ἐδ an seid toh naan &. τ
yh ax 1 AE σαὶ τὸν ra tt att ξ ἕ # bt ἢ ΔῊΝ a Meare Rina aa + Shane we
~ i J ἐξ Ὁ AA Έ ΕΝ : ᾿ “ ἀν who etd fur.) sf i. eae
τ μὰς dae ~~
- Ἢ :
τὲ Ψ ᾿ς
- ὦ ~ % ;
: a
᾿ 4 - “'
Ἶ Ἂς ᾽
΄
.
᾿ .
Ἢ 4 a
~ -
-
5 ! :
? -
a *
- . are
3 -
- « Ἧ ~
, -
~ a |
sot ἢ < , r 8
Υ »- * *
’
~ δι j
, i ‘ 4 Ύ - i ΄΄ς
᾿
: 4 tPA
- 1 - ey Ἢ
7 ᾿ a
" ἃς 3
THE PRIMITIVE TRADITION
oF
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH,
ETC.
INTRODUCTION. [541]
1. THAT our Saviour, Jesus Christ, is not man only, but rropve-
also the living and subsisting Word of God; who, before any _"~”
created being came into existence, and therefore from ever-
lasting, was with God, and was God; by whom all things
- were made, which were made, whether visible or invisible ;
who also in the fulness of time, for us men and our salva-
tion, was made flesh, that is to say, assumed true human
nature of the Virgin into the unity of His person ;—is the
manifest doctrine of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testa-
ment, propagated and preserved by the uniform and continu-
ous tradition of all the Churches which were founded by the
Apostles of Christ. But, notwithstanding, there formerly
were and still are, and that too, alas! in our own England,
ungodly men instigated by Satan, although bearing the
name of Christians, who not only have not acknowledged this
sacred doctrine, but have even opposed it with all their might,
and assailed it also with the foulest reproaches and blasphemies,
The testimonies of Scripture, which clearly proclaim Christ as
God, are eluded by these Ebionites of our country, although
not by all of them in the same way. Most of them miserably
wrest these passages, after the manner of their forefathers,
and draw them to meanings which are quite inconsistent with
the context, and with what is manifestly the proper meaning
of the words. While some* have proceeded to such a pitch
of impudence and impiety, that (as if they had conspired with [242]
* See the “ Historical Vindication of lished 1690]; and the “ Judgment of
the naked Gospel,” in the preface(pub- the Fathers,” p.22. [1695.]
BULL.— J. C. 6. r
210 Views on the early corruption of Christianity, put forth
priuimive ‘lurks and Mahometans for the ruin of Christianity) they
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
have ventured openly to declare, that the Scriptures of the
New Testament have been foully corrupted and interpolated
by Catholic Christians. Against these monsters of Christians
? si virbius jndeed Socinus himself would, if he could be restored to life’,
esset.
[243]
denounce an anathema”. With regard, however, to the tra-
dition of the Church, they all contend that no true tradition,
such, that is, as is derived from the very times of the Apostles,
can be produced in support of the Catholic view; that the
Apostles themselves and their immediate successors preached
the pure and simple Gospel; taught, that is, the view which
themselves hold, of Christ being inHis own nature merely man;
but that not long afterwards, the mystery of iniquity forsooth
even then working, the purity and simplicity of the Gospel
became corrupted by the Platonic philosophers who embraced
the Christian religion, and especially by Justin.
2. The person from whom they derived this absurd opinion,
unless I am greatly mistaken, was the writer of the Jrenicum
Trenicorum, an active and violent Ebionite, who, as I found
after a long time from the Bibliotheca Antitrinitariorum®,
was Daniel Zwicker. For this man in his Lrenicum“, pro-
posing to investigate the origin of the alteration, as he calls
it, of the apostolical doctrine concerning Christ, tells us
this very long story; In the first place, that it is probable
that the followers of Simon Magus corrupted the sound doc-
trine concerning God and Christ, by inventing a new genera-
tion of Christ, and introducing a new Christ: and that this
is attested by Hegesippus, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iv. 22.
Then, that those heretics composed some verses under the
name of Orpheus, about the Father’s Voice being put forth
by Him before the foundation of the world. Further, that
Justin, misled chiefly by these arts and follies of the Simo-
nians, and relying, as did others, on the verses called
Orpheus’, propounded his views concerning the generation
of Christ from the Father, before the creation of the world,
as the mind, voice, and reason of the Father, in order that
the world might be created by Him, and that He might
b Vide Socin. de Auctorit. 5. Script. work of Sandius, see Nelson’s Life of
cap. 1. § 3. [Op., tom. i. p. 275.) Bull, p. 334. B.]
© [(ρ. 152). The Bibliotheca Anti- a Pp. 14—16.
trinitariorum (published 1684) is a
ὧν Unitarians in Germany and England. 211
come down unto men, and at length also be made man.
Lastly, that there were various other causes, which might have
led Justin, and those who followed him, to take up such
opinions as these,—for instance, their knowledge of and fond-
ness for the Platonic philosophy; the remembrance of Gen-
tilism and of a plurality of Gods not wholly obliterated [from
their minds]; the custom of placing distinguished men in the
number of the Gods ; their scruples and dread of worshipping
one, who is only a human being, &c. From all which he at
last concludes, that the business is settled, and the origin of
the view respecting the new putting forth' of Christ, and 50.
respecting a new Christ, is manifest.
3. When I read this many years ago in the author of the
Irenicum, I presently drew up a brief refutation of the mon-
strous fable, without any thought, however, of publishing it.
But observing that these wild notions of Zwicker’s have not
long ago been brought on the stage again, not without consi-
derable show and parade, by the Unitarians here in England,
I revised that short refutation, and enlarged it as I had
occasion; and thus enlarged, (at the publisher’s request, that,
if I had any treatise written at length ready by me, I would
allow it to be added to a new edition of my previously pub-
lished works, which he had undertaken,) I here, gentle reader,
present it to you, and to your favourable consideration.
INTRODUC-
TION.
§ 1—3.
Fa εν
2
[244]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
1 ruituro.
2 libelli.
[245]
CHAPTER I.
THAT JUSTIN WAS NOT THE FIRST TO INTRODUCE INTO THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES
THE DOOTRINE OF OUR SAVIOUR’S PREEXISTENCE BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF
THE WORLD, AND OF THE CREATION OF ALL THINGS BY HIM,
1. First of all, the author of the Irenicum lays down this
as a foundation for his precarious’ building, that Justin was
the first who introduced into the Churches the doctrine of
the generation of the Son of God from God the Father before
the foundation of the world. For he says that Justin, being
misled by the deceit of the Gnostics, was the first to propound
this opinion, In another passage likewise (in p.72 of his
Irenicum) he declares in express terms; “ that no one earlier
than Justin Martyr can be adduced, that has in his writings
ascribed a divine nature to Christ, and said that He was God
before all worlds ; and that the opinion of the Artemonites (who
taught that Christ was a mere man) prevailed in the Church
from the very time of the Apostles, at least before the time of
Justin, and that it was afterwards at length altered.” He has
been followed by our modern English Socinians, or Unitarians,
as they are fond of being called; and among them chiefly by the
author of a short treatise * in English, entitled, “ The Judg-
ment of the Fathers concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity,
in opposition to the Defence of the Nicene Creed by Dr.
George Bull.”’ Throughout this treatise the writer makes
Justin the first originator of the doctrine of the Son of God
coexisting with God the Father before every creature. What
man, however, in his sound senses can put any faith in this
story? For in addition to the extreme improbability that
a man of the greatest wisdom and piety (such as Justin
certainly was), either, considermg his wisdom, could have
been so shamefully deceived in a fundamental doctrine of
Christianity by the devices of heretics, and those the most
Thereceived doctrine ofour Lord ’s Divinity when Justin wrote.213
abandoned; or, considering his piety, would have been inclined °#4?. 1%
to invent new doctrines, and even to introduce a new faith, as ᾿-
far as possible removed from the faith of his predecessors, and
the tradition of the Apostles (of which he could not have been
ignorant, since he flourished in the first succession * after the 1 ἐν πρώτῃ
Apostles); setting aside, I say, this consideration, although διαδοχῇ:
it is enough of itself to confute this absurd conceit, we have
other arguments at hand, which afford most evident proof
that the doctrine of the preexistence of the Son of God before
the foundation of the world, and also of the creation of all
things by Him, was not a peculiar invention of Justin’s,
but the common received belief of the Church, before his
time.
2. First, Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho, himself
expressly asserts, that not only he, but also the Christians of
his own time, all thought and believed, that Christ preexisted
as God before the worlds ; with the exception of a few, whom
he denotes by the word τινὲς, and who were manifestly here-
tics; inasmuch as they denied not only our Saviour’s pre-
existence before the worlds, but also His birth of the Virgin.
The passage is given at length, and very fully explained, in
the Judgment of the Catholic Church, chap. vii. Justin,
again, wrote and published his confession of the divinity of
Christ, not merely as his own, or as a private [opinion], but as
the public and well-known belief and opinion of all that were
truly Christians in his own time, and that before the Emperor
and Senate of Rome, as is clear from his Admonition to the
Heathen, and both his Apologies. What then? Was this
agreement of opinion among Christians owing to Justin
alone? Did he himself travel over the whole world to preach
the divinity of Christ? or had he apostles of his own to
disseminate his doctrine among all nations? Was it possible
that he, a single individual, could destroy the force of the
apostolical tradition, change the faith previously received in [246]
the Church, and even obtrude on the Christian world(in 98
Zwicker’s words) “a new Christ?” Did no one of the
disciples of the Apostles venture to withstand this most
shameless innovator? not even Polycarp himself, who had
John the Apostle for his teacher, and who was alive when
Justin put forth and maintained in his writings, as the
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
[247]
1 ἀνθρωπο-
λατρείας.
214 The Divinity of Christ attested by writers prior to Justin,
common belief of Christians, his doctrine of the divinity of
the Son, and who survived till a long time after? Surely no
one of sound understanding will think this credible.
3. Besides, there are extant, even at this day, writings of
fathers who lived some years before Justin, and even in
the apostolic age itself, I mean the Catholic Epistle of
Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistles of the
martyr Ignatius, from which we adduced the clearest testi-
monies in behalf of the divinity of our Saviour, and vindi-
cated them at length from the cavils of the author of the
Irenicum in our Defence of the Nicene Creed, book ii. chap. 2.
These works, indeed, the English writer whom we have men-
tioned above wholly despises, and even, as his way is, assails
their authors with reproaches and derision. But far other
has been the judgment respecting them of the most learned
men, both of ancient and modern times, in comparison of
whose judgment the criticism of that buffoon is not worth
a straw. As respects the Shepherd of Hermas, however, and
the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, we firmly maintain these
two points, which he has not ventured to deny, and which
are sufficient for our purpose :—1. That these works are of
the earliest period of [Christian] antiquity, and so more
ancient than Justin Martyr. 2. That they were also so
much approved by the Church, that at the first they were
read publicly in the religious assemblies of Christians,
together with the canonical Scriptures. And that the seven
Epistles of Ignatius, known to Eusebius, and edited in Greek
by Isaac Vossius (which alone we have used), are the genuine
production of the holy martyr, has been abundantly proved
by our most learned Pearson, in his Vindication of the Epistles
of St. Ignatius, to whom I refer the reader.
4. In addition, there were pious and learned men before
the time of Justin, who published Apologies for our religion
in opposition to the heathen; amongst whom Quadratus,
Bishop of Athens, and Aristides, were conspicuous,’ who
presented their Apologies to the Emperor Adrian, near the
beginning of his reign. It was necessary for these apologists
to vindicate the Christians from the charge of worshipping
human beings’, which was brought against them by the
heathen, and to remove that well-worn objection, “ You
especially by theApologists, as the received Christian belief. 215
worship a human being that was born and crucified *.” Nor
was it possible for any one to meet this objection without
declaring his own view respecting the Person of our Saviour,
and shewing that he was himself either catholic or heretical
on that article. But that Quadratus and Aristides had
proved themselves catholic in their apologetic writings, is
attested by Eusebius and Jerome. Of Quadratus, Eusebius
writes thus’; “ Quadratus addressed and presented to him
(Adrian) an oration which he had written as a defence of our
CHAP. I. .
§ 2-4,
religion; the work is still extant in the hands of many of
the brethren, and we ourselves also have it, and from it we
may see clear proofs both of the understanding of the writer
and of his apostolical orthodoxy.” In the same chapter he
places Aristides, his contemporary, as a writer of the same
character * as Quadratus. In like manner Jerome calls the
Apology of Quadratus °, “a very useful book, full of reason
and faith, and worthy of apostolic teaching.” And of Ari-
stides he writes thus in the next chapter‘; “Aristides, a most
eloquent Athenian philosopher, and one who retained his
-ancient [philosophic] dress as a disciple of Christ, presented
tothe Emperor Adrian a book containing the grounds of our
doctrine, at the same time as Quadratus.” So that there is
no doubt, that, in the opinion of Jerome, Aristides, in his
Apology, as well as Quadratus, held to the model and rule of
the Catholic and Apostolic faith. I will express the force of
this argument in a few words. It is certain that the Catholic
Church, in the time of Quadratus and Aristides, (and even
from the beginning,) attributed divine honours to Jesus Christ,
as we shall presently shew in this chapter. It is also certain,
that the heathen alleged this especially as an accusation
against the Christians, and that it was, therefore, necessary
for those who undertook the defence of the Christian religion
to meet this objection in the first place ; which, as we also see,
* See Arnob. i. pp. 24 and 31. [e. 36,
87, and 40, 41. ed. Orellii.]
> [τούτῳ Kodpdros λόγον προσφω-
νήσας ἀναδίδωσιν, ἀπολογίαν συντάξας
ὑπὲρ τῆς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς θεοσεβείας, ... εἰσέτι
δὲ φέρεται παρὰ πλείστοις τῶν ἀδελφῶν,
ἀτὰρ καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν τὸ σύγγραμμα,] ἐξ οὗ
κατιδεῖν ἐστι λαμπρὰ τεκμήρια τῆς τε
τοῦ ἀνδρὸς διανοΐας, καὶ τῆς ἀποστολικῆς
épPorouias.—[ Eccles. Hist. iv. 3.]
¢ Librum valde utilem, plenum
rationis et fidei, et apostolica doctrina
dignum.—In Catal. Scriptor. Eccl. in
Quadrato. [c. 19. p. 847.] -
4 Aristides Atheniensis philosophus
eloquentissimus, et sub pristino habitu
discipulus Christi, volumen nostri
dogmatis rationem continens eodem
tempore, quo et Quadratus, Hadriano
principi dedit.—[Tbid. ¢. 20. ]
1 note.
[248]
216 The worship of Christ involved the belief of His Godhead.
primitive Was done by all the Apologists whose writings have come
cee eae gown to us. Lastly, it is certain that the Catholic Church
OF THE
catnouto of Christ (as also the Jewish Church before the coming of
, CHURCH.
1 norme.
Christ) held it as a fixed and settled point, that Divine
worship ought to be ascribed to God alone, and therefore
that to give it to a mere man, or a created being, was simply
idolatry; that this determination of the universal Church
is supported both by the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments, and also by sound reasonings, we shall afterwards
prove clearly in its right place®. Now, from this it follows,
that no one could have defended the worship and religion of
Christians in a way agreeable to the principles of the Catholic
Church, who did not himself acknowledge Christ to be truly
God. But Eusebius and Jerome expressly testify that the
Apologies of Quadratus and Aristides were specially Catholic,
that is, were wholly consonant to the Catholic model* and
the Apostolic faith. To them you may add, if you will, an
observation of Petavius in the Preface to the second volume
of his Dogmata Theologica‘, to the effect that in the Roman
Martyrology, and also in those of Ado, Notker, &c., it is
stated that “ Aristides, an Athenian, presented to the Em-
peror Adrian a book respecting the Christian religion, con-
taining the grounds of our doctrine ; and that in the presence
of the emperor himself he most clearly maintained in an
oration that Christ Jesus is alone God.”
5. Further, we must here repeat the very distinct testi-
mony of Eusebius, which we adduced in another place ", from
his Eccl. Hist. iv.5, where he writes, “ that he had learned
from the records of ancient writers‘ that all the fifteen
bishops, who presided over the Church of Jerusalem, down
to the time of Adrian, although they were of the circum-
cision, yet received the knowledge of ‘Christ sincerely” (τὴν
γνῶσιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ γνησίως καταδέξασθαι). But certainly,
at least in the judgment of Eusebius, they alone received
© Chap. viii. “-h Judgment of the Catholic Church,
f (C. ii. 8.1 ii. 11. [p. 88.]
s Athenis sancti Aristidis... qui i [The words “veterwm scriptorum
Hadriano principi de religione Chris- monumentis,” which Bishop Bull cites,
tiana volumen obtulit, nostri do@matis 876 in the Latin version. The Greek
continens rationem ; et quod Christus is simply ἐξ ἐγγράφων, “from written
Jesus solus esset Deus, presente ipso records.’’]
imperatore, luculentissime peroravit.
Eusebius on the belief of the Church of Jerusalem; Objections.217
the knowledge of Christ sincerely, who confessed that “ He
preexisted, being God and Wisdom” (προύὐπάρχειν αὐτὸν, Θεὸν
ὄντα καὶ σοφίαν), as Eusebius himself interprets his own
words, Eccl. Hist. iii. 27, where by this description he distin-
guishes the Catholics and orthodox from the heretical Ebion-
ites, who, he says, entertained poor and low opinions as
regarded Christ” (πτωχῶς καὶ ταπεινῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ
δοξάζοντας). But what reply does the author of the work
entitled “The Judgment of the Fathers,” &c. make to this
testimony of Eusebius? Hear it, and admire the shameless-
ness of the man*; “ We grant that Eusebius says that the
Jerusalem-bishops ‘ professed the true knowledge of Christ ;’
we answer, he borrowed this from Hegesippus. .. . But Hege-
sippus himself being a Jewish Christian, that is, one that
believed our Saviour to be a man only, when he said, the
Jerusalem-bishops professed ‘ the true knowledge of Christ,’ he
undoubtedly meant, that our Lord was a true and mere man ;
against the Docetz....who held His preexistence, and denied
that He was a [true] man.” But, 1, he must needs make
the great Eusebius to be altogether stupid, and a man of no
ability or judgment, who believes that he was so grossly
mistaken in alleging the authors whose testimonies he used.
Eusebius says that he had learned from the records of ancient
writers, that the Bishops of Jerusalem, down to the time of
Adrian, had received the knowledge of Christ sincerely; that
is, in his meaning, had acknowledged the true divinity of
Christ our Lord. But, if we are to believe this trifler,
the authors, or the author, to whom he referred, meant the
very contrary; namely, that those bishops were Ebionites,
that is, held our Saviour to be a mere man. 2. Eusebius
does not mention the name of Hegesippus, as he is accus-
tomed to do when he cites anything out of him; but only
says generally that he had learned this “ out of the writings”
of the ancients (ἐξ ἐγγράφων). Now surely, besides Hege-
sippus, Eusebius had read very many other writers, which were
supplied to him by the ample library formed at Jerusalem
by Alexander, bishop of that city ; of which he writes thus,
κ ΓΡ, 43. Bishop Bull omits “and “man,” which is here enclosed in
other platonizing Christians,” after brackets. ]
“ Docetez,” and inserts “true” before
fe
CHAP. I.
ὃ 4, 5.
[250]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
[251]
218 Materials used by Eusebius for his History. Testimony of
Eccl. Hist. vi. 201, “At this time,” (ae. in the reign of
Antoninus,) “ there flourished many learned men of the
Church, whose letters written to each other are preserved, and
may still easily be found. They have been kept also till our
time in the library at Adlia (Jerusalem) which was formed
by Alexander, who at that time governed the Church there,
from which (library) we ourselves also have been able to
collect together the materials for the subjects we have in
hand.” Besides, Eusebius had at hand the famous library
of the martyr Pamphilus, in which were stored [the works of |
ecclesiastical writers collected from all quarters by that most
blessed man, concerning which see Euseb. Eccl. Hist. vi. 32.
3. Allow that Eusebius had derived this from Hegesippus,
what then? “ Hegesippus,” he says, “ was a Unitarian, and
believed Christ our Saviour to be a mere man.” Nothing
can be more untrue. I ask, Whence, from what authority,
did he learn this? From Zwicker only (as I conceive), the
author of the Lrenicum, whom he everywhere blindly follows,
even when he leads him among precipices. But that Hege-
sippus was Catholic, and uniformly continued in the commu-
nion of the Catholic Church, in which the belief of Christ
as God and man prevailed, we shall afterwards™ prove most
evidently in a more convenient place. _
6. After the testimony of Eusebius, (not in the first place,
as the sophist with whom we are now dealing shamelessly -
affirms,) we adduced™ the witness of Sulpitius Severus,
a most grave historian: who in his Sacred History, 11. 45,
writes expressly, that the primitive Church of Jerusalem,
which, down to the times of Adrian, had its Bishops from the
circumcision only, “΄ believed in Christ as God, under the ob-
servance of the Law.’ What reply does that trifler make here
again? When, he says°, Sulpitius affirms, that those Chris-
tians “believed in Christ-God, I have proved it to be a
mistake by the testimony of those fathers who lived among
1 [ἤκμαζον δὲ κατὰ τοῦτο πλείους
λόγιοι καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ ἄνδρες, ὧν καὶ
ἐπιστολὰς ἂς πρὸς ἀλλήλους διεχάραττον
ἔτι καὶ νῦν σωζομένας εὑρεῖν εὔπορον, at
καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐφυλάχθησαν ἐν τῇ κατὰ
Αἰλίαν βιβλιοθήκῃ, πρὸς τοῦ τηνικάδε
τὴν αὐτόθι διέποντος ἐκκλησίαν ᾿Αλεξ-
ἄνδρου ἐπισκευασθείσῃ, ἀφ᾽ hs καὶ αὐτοὶ
τὰς ὕλας τῆς μετὰ χεῖρας ὑποθέσεως ἐπὶ
ταὐτὸ συναγαγεῖν δεδυνήμεθα.----νἱ. 20. ]
m Chap. 111.
" See the Judgment of the Catholic
Church, p. 45. [p. 41.]
° [Judgment of the Fathers, ὅτο,
p. 40.]
Sulpitius Severus, and others, cited by Bp. Bull, vindicated. 219
the Jewish-Christians, namely, Origen and Theodoret; and
of other fathers who were much nearer to them than Sulpi-
tius, even Epiphanius and St. Augustine.” Nothing cer-
tainly can be more foolish than this answer. Sulpitius is
speaking of the primitive Church of Jerusalem, which flou-
rished under bishops of its own of the circumcision down to
the destruction of the city under Adrian. But what? Did
Origen and Theodoret converse with these Jewish-Chris-
tians? Were Epiphanius and St. Augustine nearer to them
than Sulpitius? Sulpitius expressly affirms of the Christians
of the primitive Church of Jerusalem that they believed in
Christ as God. Eusebius had stated the same previously to
Sulpitius, and that out of the most ancient records of that
Church. Did then Origen, or Theodoret, or Epiphanius,
or Augustine, or any other of the ancients, contradict Euse-
bius and Sulpitius on this point? Certainly not. They
are speaking of the Jewish-Christians, be they Ebionites or
Nazarenes, of their own, that is of a much later time, and
that in a different respect. However, of the Nazarenes of later
times, and their view respecting the person of Christ, I have
treated at length in the Judgment of the Catholic Church,
iil. 13, [p. 41,] &c. It will be worth while to repeat here the
CHAP. I.
§ 5—7.
[252]
or
chief heads of what I wrote in that place, and to vindicate Ὁ
them from the cavils of a troublesome opponent.
7. In the first place I alleged the testimony of Augustine
as to the opinions of the Nazarenes in these words? ; “ While
Augustine, in his work on Heresies, after treating in chap. 8
of the Cerinthians, as having taught ‘that men ought to be
circumcised in the flesh, and observe other precepts of the
Law of this kind, that Jesus was simply man,’ &c.; goes on
in chapters 9 and 10 thus to expound the doctrines of the
Nazarenes and the Ebionites; ‘Although the Nazarenes
confess that Christ is the Son of God, (and consequently
thus far differ from the Cerinthians, who regard Him as man
only,) ‘yet they observe all the ceremonies of the ancient
law,’ (in this agreeing with the Cerinthians,) ‘which Chris-
tians by the tradition of the Apostles have been taught not
to observe carnally, but to understand spiritually. The
Ebionites also for their part’ (i.e. just like the Cerinthians,
p [Judgment of the Catholic Church, ii. 13. See above, p. 41, note.]
[253]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION ;
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
1 διακριτι-
κῶς.
2 ante om-
nia seecula,
— Butt.
[254]
220 Testimony of St. Augustine as to the Nazarenes, vindicated
of whom he had been speaking a little before) ‘ say that He
is only aman. They observe the carnal ordinances of the
Law, &c.’ Here it is plain (in spite of the cavils of the author
of the Jrenicum) that Augustine meant to distinguish the
Nazarenes both from the Cerinthians and from the Ebionites
in this point, that the Nazarenes acknowledged that Christ
was not man only, as the Cerinthians and the Ebionites
thought, but the Son of God,’ (that is in a distinctive sense’)
“and consequently God.” On this my adversary accuses 4
me of shamelessness, because I wished to infer from this testi- .
mony of Augustine, that the Nazarenes “held that Christ
was in such sense the Son of God,” as ‘‘ that He was born οὗ
God from all eternity ’,” when I was myself conscious that
the Ebionites also, who believed Christ to be a mere man,
nevertheless acknowledged Him as the Son of God. I reply,
that the Ebionites said indeed that Christ was the Son of
God, but by no means in the sense of Augustine, or of the
Nazarenes of whom Augustine is speaking. For in this point
Augustine manifestly distinguishes the Nazarenes from the
Ebionites, that the former acknowledged Christ as the Son
of God, but the latter did not. What is to be said of the
fact, that he manifestly opposes the view of the Nazarenes
who confessed that our Saviour is the Son of God, to that of
the Ebionites and Cerinthians, who taught that Christ was
only man? In the sense of Augustine and the Nazarenes,
therefore, to acknowledge Christ as the Son of God, is the
same as professing that Christ is not a mere man. After
that, the sophist, as if he would correct our interpretation of
Augustine, and bring out his genuine text and meaning, goes
on thus’; “ But let us recite the very words of St. Austin,
De Hares. c.9,10; ‘The Nazarenes, as they confess Christ is
the Son of God, so they observe the whole Law; the which,
Christians have been taught that ’tis to be understood and
taken spiritually, not carnally. The Ebionites also say, that
Christ is a man only, and observe the carnal precepts of the
Law.’ These words, ‘the Ebionites also say that Christ is
a man only,’ would be nonsense, if the Nazarenes, of whom
he speaks immediately before, had not likewise so held.”
But this is not to recite the very words of Augustine, but to
4 Judgment of the Fathers, p. 48. r {Ibid..]
et I i
from misrepresentation ; that of St.Jerome on thesame point. 221
corrupt and destroy his entire text. Instead of cum, that is
“ although,” which Augustine uses in detailing the opinion
of the Nazarenes, he substitutes sicut ; for tamen, which is in
Augustine, he puts ita; and, which is the chief point, the
sophist has omitted altogether what Augustine says of the
opinion of the Cerinthians in the chapter immediately pre-
ceding, although without that the genuine meaning of Augus-
tine in what follows can in nowise be perceived or compre-
hended. But if you attend to this which goes before, it will
be manifest that this etiam, “ also,” which Augustine uses in
stating the opinions of the Ebionites, ought altogether to be
referred not to the Nazarenes, but to the Cerinthians. Let
the learned and fair-minded reader go to Augustine himself’,
and he will, I have no doubt, wholly agree with me.
8. To the testimony of Augustine I subjoined the witness
of Jerome, who writes thus of the Nazarenes (with whom he
had himself conversed familiarly), in his 89th Epistle ;
“ ΠῸ this very day there exists through all the synagogues of
the East a heresy among the Jews, called that of the Minzi,
who are commonly called Nazarenes ; these believe in Christ,
[as] the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary; and they say
that it was He who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose
from the dead, in whom we also believe. But whilst they
would be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews
nor Christians.” In these words Jerome, agreeing with
Augustine, says that the Nazarenes believed in Christ fas]
the Son of God; and not content with this, he explains
himself, affirming that they believed in that Son of God in
whom we also (that is, Catholics) believe; so that in this
doctrine respecting the Son of God, he acknowledges no
distinction at all between the Catholics and the Nazarenes.
Hear, reader, if you can without horror, what his impure and
sacrilegious tongue says in reply to this"; ‘ One would have
thought, that when the Nazarenes say here, We believe in
the Son of God, that was born of the Virgin Mary, was put
to death under Pontius Pilate, and rose again from the dead ;
* (Vol. viii. p.7. The words them- the Judgment of the Catholic Church,
selves are cited in the Judgment of ii.13. pp. 42, 43.]
the egies Church, ii. 13, above, « Judgment of the Fathers, pp. 43,
p. 42. 44,
t (Ep. exii. 13. vol. i. p. 740. See
CHAP. I.
§ 7, 8.
[255]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[256]
222 The argument of Jerome implies that the Nazarenes
they had sufficiently declared, that the Son of God in whom
they believed was the man Christ Jesus ; not a Son of God
that could not be born of the Virgin Mary, or die, or rise
again. But because St. Jerome says, ‘in whom also we
believe,’ Dr. Bull cries out, Look here, the Nazarenes be-
lieved in that Son of God in whom the orthodox believed.
We think. so too, Doctor; because both parties believed in
the Son of God, who was generated and born of Mary, died,
and rose again; though the orthodox (so called) invented
also another Son of God; a Son that could not be generated
and born of Mary, a Son that could not die, a Son as old as
His Father, a second Almighty, another Creator, first made
known by the Council of Nice.” The meaning of this reply
is to this effect : He who professes that he believes in the Son
of God, born of a Virgin, who suffered under Pontius Pilate,
and died, thereby intimates that he believes in a Son of God
who is a mere man, not God; since the Divine Nature, as
being impassible, could not be born of a Virgin, die, and rise
again from the dead. But the Nazarenes professed that they
believed in the Son of God, born of a Virgin, &c. Therefore
they did not believe in the Son of God, who Himself is God.
But yet the Catholic Church before the Council of Nice, and,
as Jerome attests, the Nazarenes, agreeing with the Catho-
1165, always believed in the Son of God, who, when He was
.Himself God, assumed human flesh of a Virgin at the fore-
appointed time, and in that flesh died, and afterwards rose
again from the dead. For he says, that the Nazarenes believed
‘in that Son of Godin whom we also” (that is, the Catholics)
‘“‘believe.””? Besides, in that Epistle Jerome had undertaken _
to shew and to prove, in opposition to Augustine (whom he had
imagined to be opposed to him on that question), that they
who observed the ritual law of Moses had always been
accounted heretics by the Church. He endeavours to prove
this, first, by the instances of the Cerinthians and the Ebio-
nites; but, as he was conscious that Ebion had been con-
demned as heretical by the Church, because he denied the
divinity of Christ, and that Cerinthus had been erased from the
list of Christians both for that same heresy, and for other im-
pious doctrines; he therefore of his own accord retreats from
the instance of Cerinthus and Ebion, intending to make fight
were Catholic on the subject of our Lord’s Divinity. 223
with another argument, drawn from the Nazarenes, which map: 1.
- would cut off all handle for cavil. ‘Why should I speak,” he ὃ ὃ ὃ"
says, “οὗ the Ebionites, who pretend that they are Christians?
Even to this day, through all the synagogues of the East,” &c.
As if he said; You will perhaps raise a question about the
Ebionites, and indeed I do not deny that they entertained
impious opinions about Christ our Lord, in that they teach
that He is nothing more than man, and therefore, although they
pretend that they are Christians, yet are they by no means to
be regarded as truly Christians: but certainly you will have [257]
nothing to reply respecting the Nazarenes ; for although they
entertain with ourselves right views respecting the person of
our Saviour, yet are they regarded by the Church as heretical,
solely on account of their observance of the ceremonial law.
These points you will see more fully explained by me, in
the Judgment of the Catholic Church, in chapter ii. 13, from
which 1 have already quoted [pp. 42, &c.]
9. From Augustine and Jerome I went up’ to a writer
much earlier than they, I mean Justin Martyr, who lived
as early as the time of Adrian, in whose reign the Church of
the Christians of the circumcision at Jerusalem was driven
from the city, and dispersed into various countries, and who
published his works not long after that dispersion. From
his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, I evidently inferred that
there were in his time men, who combined’ with the ob-?* misce-
servance of the ceremonial law of Moses the Catholic faith τον
concerning Christ, even that by which it is believed that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who existed before all created
beings, and at the appointed time became incarnate for men’s
salvation, and was made man of the Virgin, &c.; but yet did
not impose on other, that is to say, on Gentile, Christians, the
necessity of observing that law. To these Justin professes
his readiness to extend the right hand of brotherly love and
fellowship. These, I assert, were none other than the Naza-
renes, or Christians of Jerusalem, who had not so long before
been expelled from their country by Adrian. -Now, what
does my shameless opponent say* to this? “I answer,” says
he, ‘‘ whoever they were, they were not the Nazarenes. Most
τ In the Judgment of the Cath. Ch., * Judgment of the Fathers, p. 44.
the place cited, § 14. [p. 45.]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[258]
1 temera-
rint.
2 effugium.
[259]
224 The testimony of Justin Martyr shewn to express the same;
of the Gnostic sects, who also observed the Mosaic law, held
the preexistence of our Saviour. What hinders, but that
they might be the Cerinthians?” Which is just as much
as to say, Whatever you may have proved, I will never retire
from my preconceived hypothesis; I will invent anything,
I will believe anything, rather than that the Nazarenes
acknowledged the divinity of Christ. But there are very
many things which shew that they were not Cerinthians,
nor any other Gnostic sect. First, these Christians, of whom
Justin is speaking,confessed the ἐνσάρκωσις, or real Incarna-
tion, of the Son of God, which neither the Cerinthians nor
any other sect of Gnostics acknowledged. See what I have
written in the Defence of the Nicene Creed, iii. 1. 6. [p.375,]
and in the Judgment of the Catholic Church, ii. 4. [p. 27.]
Again, the Christians of whom Justin is treating held the
orthodox faith in all points necessary to be believed in
order to salvation, and. did not in anything differ from the
Catholic Church of Christ, except that they themselves reli-
giously observed the Mosaic rites. The Cerinthians, on the con-
trary, and all the other Gnostics, adulterated almost the whole
Christian religion to such an extent, that there was scarcely
any article of the Christian faith which they did not mar’
with their corruptions. Besides, the Cerinthians and the rest
of the Judaizing Gnostics, quite as much as the Ebionites,
had taught that the ceremonial law of Moses must of necessity
be observed by all. But the Judaizing Christians, of whom
Justin is speaking, thought and taught otherwise. Lastly,
Justin regarded these Judaizing Christians as brethren, and
entertained good hope of their salvation; whereas it is clear
that the most holy father altogether abhorred the Cerinthians
and the rest of the Gnostics as most pestilent heretics, aliens
from the Church of Christ, and so from the salvation which
is to be obtained through Christ. Our opponent was, in
my opinion, himself ashamed of the foolish answer, and,
accordingly, sought some other way of escape’. ‘“‘ Besides,”
he says, “it is uncertain whether Justin meant to say, that
there were some Christians who keep the law of Moses, and
yet believed that Christ was before Lucifer and the moon.
To make out this sense, Dr. Bull is forced to add these
words to the words of Justin, ‘ such a Christ as you before
Bp. Bull’s argument from it vindicated. 225
described.’” But whoever carefully: and attentively reads
through the context of the passage of Justin entire, will see
that I have by no means done violence to his words. Trypho
had proposed certain questions to Justin about the salvation
of godly men, both those who lived before the institution of
the ceremonial law of Moses, and those who lived under that
Jaw. And Justin answers, that both will be saved in the
world to come. Towards the end, however, of his answer to
these questions, Justin describes’ that faith respecting Christ,
which is required of us Christians in order to salvation, and
states it to be of this kind, that, namely, whereby we believe
““ Christ to be the Son of God, who was both before the
morning star and the moon” (ds καὶ πρὸ ἑωσφόρου καὶ σελή-
vns ἦν), “ and endured to be made flesh of the seed of David,
and to be born of the Virgin,” &c. Immediately after this
follows the question of Trypho, whether they who now believe
in Christ, and with that belief in Christ retain the observance
of the ceremonial law of Moses, can be saved? Who now
can doubt but that in this question of his he meant the
same faith in Christ which Justin had described immediately
before ? I expressed the question of Trypho correctly, there-
fore, by this paraphrase; “ But if there be even now any who
desire to live in observance of the appointments of Moses,
and also believe in this crucified Jesus, acknowledging that
He is the Christ of God,” (that is to say, such as you, Justin,
just now described,) ‘ can they also be saved?”
10. Lastly, I adduced? a testimony from. the sixth book
of the Apostolical Constitutions, the twelfth chapter of which
bears this title, Against such as confess, but yet wish to
Judaise” (πρὸς τοὺς ὁμολογοῦντας, ᾿Ιουδαΐζειν δὲ θέλοντας) ;
such as confess, that is, the faith which had been set forth
in the chapter immediately preceding, and specially that part
of it which is rehearsed at the end of the chapter*; “ We
acknowledge the Christ, not [as] a mere man, but [as] God
the Word and Man, the Mediator between God and men.”
From this I conclude, that, in the age in which the author
of the Constitutions lived, there were some Christians who,
y Dial. cum Tryph. pp. 263, 264. κα τὸν Χριστὸν οὐ ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον
[8 45. p.141. ὁμολογοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ Θεὸν λόγον καὶ ἄν-
« {Judgment of the Catholic Church, θρωπὸν μεσίτην Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων .----
p. 49.] [Apost. Const. vi. 11.]
Se ee Q
[260]
220 Evidence from the Apost. Const. that some believed
primitive although they acknowledged Christ’ to be God and Man, still
“or tun 80 far agreed with the Jews, and differed from the rest of the
pe Christians, as that they still adhered to the ceremonial law
᾿ οἵ Moses. These, I assert, were the very Nazarenes them-
selves. ΤῸ this assertion my opponent thus replies; “ Mr.
Bull must first prove that there was no other denomination
of Christians” (except the Nazarenes) “who observed the
Mosaic law, and also believed that Christ is God the Word.
But he knows that the Cerinthians, and most of the Gnostic
sects, did Judaise, and also believe the preexistence of our
Saviour, and that He-is God the Word.” The man who
could write thus betrays thereby either his own gross igno-
rance of ecclesiastical history, or at any rate consummate
impudence. Neither the Cerinthians, nor any other sect of
Gnostics, sincerely acknowledged Christ to be God the Word |
and Man, and the Mediator between God and men. “Let the
reader look back at what we have just now said on the tes-
timony of Justin, which we last quoted. Besides, in that
Confession of the Faith which is recited in the 11th chapter
[261] [of the Apostolical Constitutions], and referred to in the title
of the 12th chapter, there is not an article to which either the
- Cerinthians or any other Gnostic sect could have subscribed
and sincerely assented. At the very conimencement of that
Confession, a death-blow is struck at the heresy of the
Cerinthians, and of all other Gnostics®; “ We profess that -
there is one only God, the Lord of the law and the prophets,
the ‘Creator of all things, the Father of Christ.” Parallel
8 to which are the words that follow soon after®; “ One God,
Father of one Son, not of more, of one Paraclete through
Christ, Maker of the other orders, one Creator, Maker
* διαφόρου through Christ of the different creatures’, the same Provi-
aa mi dent Being’, who gave the law through Him’*.” The sophist,
πρυνοητήν. accordingly, distrusting this reply of his, goes off soon after-
areal wards into a digression, and wishes to lead us away into a
‘controversy respecting the author of the Constitutions, as to
whether he agreed with the Catholic Church on the subject
> ἕνα μόνον Θεὸν καταγγέλλομεν, vé- ὄνων, ἑνὸς παρακλήτου διὰ Χριστοῦ, τῶν
μου καὶ προφητῶν κύριον, τῶν ὄντων ἄλλων ταγμάτων ποιητὴν, ἕνα δημιουρ-
δημιουργὸν, τοῦ Χριστοῦ warépa.—[vi. γὸν, διαφόρου κτίσεως διὰ Χριστοῦ ποιη-
ἅν THY’ τὸν αὐτὸν προνοητὴν, νομοθέτην δι᾽
ἕνα Θεὸν, ἑνὸς υἱοῦ πατέρα, οὐ πλει- αὐτοῦ.---[Τ0 1.1
aright in Christ, and yet observed the Law, vindicated. 227
of the Holy Trinity, or was infected with the taint of Arian-
ism. On this question I have frankly declared my opinion in
my Defence of the Nicene Creed, ii. 3.,6. [pp. 111, 112.]
With respect, however, to that Confession of Faith which is
contained in the 11th chapter, the intelligent reader will
readily perceive some things in it which appear to savour
of Arianism,-and other things which no Arian could have
acknowledged sincerely and without dissimulation. Of this
kind is his professing, by way of distinction’, that God is the
Father of Christ, but “the Maker of all other things by
Christ” (τὸν ποιητὴν διὰ Χριστοῦ). This is more clearly
expressed in book vii. chap. 41, where the article of the
Christian faith respecting the only-begotten Son of God is
thus explained*; “ And in the Lord Jesus Christ, His only-
begotten Son, begotten, not created, by whom all things
were made.” In these words, Christ the Son of God is
completely taken out of the class of created beings, and so is
acknowledged as very God. But were we to grant that the
author, in the Confession we have quoted, which occurs in
the 11th chapter of the sixth book, had scattered some seeds
of Arian heresy, it would by no means be a necessary con-
sequence that “they who confess” (τοὺς ὁμολογοῦντας), who
‘are mentioned in the title of the next chapter, were like-
wise Arians. For it is clear, that the author in that chapter
meant indeed to give the entire rule of faith, everywhere
received in the Christian Churches of his own time; although
it is equally certain that that rule is given by him in para-
phrase, his own explanations being here and there inserted ;
and it is manifest that persons might have confessed that
rule of faith, who did not at all approve of all the glosses of
the author, or rather interpolator.
11. 1 return at length to the point from which I made a
digression, to which I was forced by my opponent. From
the testimonies of the ancients which we have adduced above,
it is perfectly clear that the Christians of the primitive
Church of Jerusalem who were of the circumcision, received
the knowledge of Christ our Lord sincerely (γνησίως), “in its
genuine sense*;” that is, acknowledged His true divinity ; and
4 καὶ εἰς τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν τὸν νηθέντα οὐ κτισθέντα' δ᾽ of τὰ πάντα
Χριστὸν, τὸν μονογενἢ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν, γεν- eyévero.—[vii. 41.]
Q 2
CHAP. I.
§ 10, 11.
1 διακριτι-
κῶς.
[269]
? genuine.
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[263] _
1 admi-
nistris.
228 Evidence from Pliny and others, that the early Christians
that the same faith continued in that Church down to its dis-
persion in the time of the emperor Adrian. Now, if in the
Church of Jerusalem, the mother of all other Churches, the
doctrine of the divinity of our Saviour Christ was from the
beginning acknowledged and received, and always, so long as
the Church itself stood, faithfully preserved, it cannot be
doubted but that in all the other Churches also, which were
founded and constituted by either the Apostles themselves or
their assistants’, the same faith was propagated and dis-
seminated.
12. Lastly, it is clear from the Epistle of the younger
Pliny to the emperor Trajan®, written about the year of our
Lord 106, that the Christians of that age were accustomed
in their assemblies to celebrate the divinity of our Saviour
2 secum
invicem.
in hymns and psalms. .This fact he relates from the con-
fession of apostate Christians in the following words'; “ And
they affirmed that this was the sum of their fault, or
error, that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day
before it was light, and to sing by course, one with another’,
a hymn to Christ as God.” ‘To these psalms appeal was
made by an ancient author of weight (in Eusebius, Eccl.
Hist. v. 28), [in writing] against the Artemonites, who
rejected the doctrine of the true divinity of Christ as a
novelty; ‘ Such psalms also,” he says®, “and hymns of the ~
brethren, as were written from the beginning (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς)
by the faithful, celebrate Christ the Word of God, setting
Him forth as God” (τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Χριστὸν ὑμνοῦσι
θεολογοῦντες). So clear and obvious were the testimonies
supplied by these psalms to the true divinity of Christ
haying been acknowledged by the apostolic and primitive
Church, that Paul of Samosata, who revived the blasphemous
heresy of Artemon, could not for this very reason endure
them; and therefore ordered that they should be abolished
in the Churches subject to his jurisdiction, as is testified by
the fathers of the Council of Antioch convened against him,
in their Synodical. Epistle, in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. vii. 80.
I have no doubt that it was hymns of this description which
e Lib. x. Epist. xevii. convenire, carmenque Christo, quasi
f Affirmabant autem, hanc fuisse Deo, dicere secum invicem.
summam vel culpe sue, vel erroris, & [See above, p. 58, notes 4, &]
quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem
᾿ ϑαηρ praises to Christ, in their hymns, as God. 229
the Apostle Paul had in his mind when he thus wrote in his
Epistle to the Ephesians, v. 19; “ Speaking to. yourselves in
psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making -
melody in your heart to the Lord,” τῷ Κυρίῳ, i.e. to Christ ;
and let the reader observe by the way, that the Apostle’s
words, “speaking to yourselves” (λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς), quite
correspond to what Pliny says of the Christians, that they
were accustomed “to sing in course one with another” a
hymn to Christ as God. These words seem to signify the
mode of singing alternately, which, even in the present day,
is usual in churches. Now, from all that we have advanced
‘in this chapter, it is at length established beyond all doubt or
controversy, that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ was
by no means an invention of Justin Martyr, but had obtained
long before his time in the Christian Churches, and, further,
was delivered and promulgated throughout all the world by
_ the first preachers of the Gospel together with the Gospel
itself, of which it certainly forms the principal part: and this
was the point which I undertook to demonstrate.
CHAP. I. _
§ 11, 12.
[264]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 senten-
tiam.
2 scilicet.
3 κατὰ
πόδας.
[266]
4 descen-
dentes ex.
CHAPTER II.
THAT JUSTIN WAS NOT MISLED BY THE FRAUDS OF THE SIMONIANS, AND THAT
THE OPINION OF THE DIVINITY OF THE SON DID NOT PROCEED FROM THE
SCHOOL OF SIMON.
1. Tus foundation being destroyed, that monstrous. pile
which the author of the Lvrenicum raised upon it falls to the
ground of itself. For since it is now clearer than the light
itself, that Justin was not the first to devise [the doctrine of |
the generation of the Son before the foundation of the world,,
but that that doctrine’ prevailed amongst Christians long
before Justin was born, nay, in the very age of the Apostles,
it would not be necessary to examine very carefully into the
causes by which Justin was, forsooth’, seduced into this erro-
neous opinion. As, however, we have determined to follow
this author step by step*, and as in that way both his own
blind perverseness, and also the truth itself, will be made
more and more apparent, we shall, on these accounts, go on -
freely to discuss the causes which he has invented. Now
the causes which he assigns are either primary, such, that is,
as principally led Justin into, what he thinks, his error; or
secondary and auxiliary, which led Justin himself further on
in the same error. Under the former class, the heretic
enumerates two causes: 1. The heresy of the Simonians;
2. The verses which were composed by those heretics under
the name of Orpheus. |
2. Regarding the former [of these causes] he writes thus®;_
«And in the first place it seems to be probable, that after the
death of the Apostles, as Hegesippus informs us, in Eusebius,
Eccles. Hist. iv. 22, some Christians, or rather false Christs,
false prophets, and false apostles, descended from‘ those
* Tren. p. 14.
© iene"
Obj. that Justin derived his. views from Simon Magus. 281
seven heresies among the Christian people”, which the said omar. τι.
Hegesippus enumerates in the same passage, and of which he ὁ *~*_
makes-the prime leader and promoter to be Simon Magus the
Samaritan ; (and so not shrinking from uniting the true God
with false deities * and idols in his own Samaritan worship ;) ! deastris.
and, by the invention of most perverse opinions (mark, these
are the very words of Hegesippus) against God and Christ,
first of all divided the unity of the Church, and moreover (as
will soon appear from the doctrine of Simon Magus) cor-
rupted the sound doctrine respecting God and Christ, by
devising a new generation of Christ, and introducing a new
Christ. -For with respect to Simon Magus, all writers of
Ecclesiastical history, without exception, testify that he was
the first opposer of Christ’; that is, that he [first] denied ? Christo-
Jesus to be the Christ and Redeemer, or such an one as died ™°2™™
‘ for sins; and on the contrary asserted that he himself alone was ;
both the Son who appeared among the Jews, and the Father
who descended in Samaria, and the Holy Ghost who came
among the Gentiles; that he came down transfigured, and [266] ᾿
appeared among men as a man, though he was not a man,
and was supposed to have suffered in Judea, though he did
not suffer; that he was the infinite power; and that Selene
was the first conception of his mind, (for he designated the
second, Voice and mental comprehension, and the third
Reason or thought,) and the Mother of all, through whom in
the beginning he conceived in his mind 'the creating of angels
and archangels. For he said, that this conception springing
forth from him, knowing what its Father wills, descended
into the lower regions, and generated the angels and powers
by whom the world was made.” The author adds, “ Justin
was deceived by these wild notions of the Simonians.” ©
3. But this conjecture of his is far removed from all proba-
bility. For in the first place, what could Christ have had in
common with Belial, light with darkness, the fathers and
doctors of the Church with the most notorious heretics?
For it is certain that all the bishops and doctors of the
Church who succeeded the Apostles, (and so all Christians
who adhered to them,) always detested the Simonian heresy
b He ought to have said, “among Valesius, on Eusebius iv. pp. 79, 80.
the Jewish people.” See the note of [p. 183.]
232 Justin abhorred and wrote against the doctrines of Simon;
prrurtive With their whole souls, so that they would: rather have
ey eee fetched fire from hell, than any doctrine from the forge of
carsouie Simon Magus. This is abundantly attested by their writings
CHURCH.
10
[267]
which are extant at the present day. But that Justin espe-
cially was most pure from all taint of this heresy, is manifest,
(if it were not plain from other considerations,) from the ᾿
fact, that in his Dialogue with Trypho*, after making men-
tion of the Gnostics, under the title, ‘‘ so-called Christians,”
λεγομένων Χριστιανῶν, who arrogated to themselves the
liberty of eating things offered to idols, he concludes that
herein that prophecy of Christ was fulfilled, in which he
foretold that false Christs and false apostles should arise,
“who would deceive many of the faithful”
πιστῶν πλανήσοντας).
(πολλοὺς τῶν
He also adds respecting them, “ With
none of whom do we hold communion, knowing them
to be atheists and impious men” (ὧν οὐδενὶ κοινωνοῦμεν, οἱ
γνωρίζοντες ἀθέους καὶ ἀσεβεῖς). In another place in the
same Dialogue he says, that Christ foreknew what would
happen after His resurrection and ascension, namely, that
many false prophets and false Christs would come in His
name ([z.e.] under the mask of a Christian . profession) ;
“ which,” says he4, “is actually the case. For many have
falsely coined and taught in His name, atheistical and
blasphemous and unrighteous [doctrines]; and things which
have been put into their minds by the impure spirit, the
devil, they have taught and continue to teach until now “ἢ
¢ P, 253. [ὃ 35. p. 132.] all rule, and authority, and power.”
ὁ Ὅπερ καί ἐστι. πολλοὶ γὰρ ἄθεα,
καὶ βλάσφημα, καὶ ἄδικα ἐν ὀνόματι
αὐτοῦ παραχαράσσοντες ἐδίδαξαν, “καὶ τὰ
ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀκαθάρτου “πνεύματος ᾿διαβό-
λου ἐμβαλλόμενα ταῖς διανοίαις αὐτῶν
ἐδίδαξαν καὶ διδάσκουσι μέχρι viv. —
Ῥ. 808, [§ 82. Ρ.1179.]1
© Nay, in the same Dialogue he not
only mentions, in p. 307, [p. 178,] the
seven heresies of the Jews alluded to
by Zwicker, but also, in p. 349, [§ 120.
pp. 213, 214,] expressly rejects Simon
Magus as an heresiarch and _false-
Christian, in these words; “ For I had
no respect for one of my own nation,
that is of the Samaritans, when, ad-
dressing Ceesar in writing, I said that
they are deceived through reliance on
the wizard of their own nation, Simon,
whom they allege to be God, above
(οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους τοῦ ἐμοῦ, λέγω
δὲ τῶν Σαμαρέων, τινὸς φροντίδα ποιού-
μενος, ἔγγράφως Καίσαρι προσομιλῶν,
εἶπον, πλανᾶσθαι αὐτοὺς πειθομένους τῷ
ἐν τῷ γένει αὐτῶν μάγῳ Σίμωνι, ὃ ὃν Θεὸν
ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς, καὶ ἐξουσίας, καὶ
δυνάμεως εἶναι λέγουσι.) Justin, no
doubt, had in view partly the passage
in the Apology which our reverend
author has quoted, and partly another,
which occurs in the Apology, com- -
monly called the First, p. 52 of the
‘Paris edition, or 56 of the recent
Oxford edition, [Apol. ii. 15. p. 98,7
which is to this effect; “I also
despised the impious and. deceptive
teaching of Simon, one of my own
nation” (καὶ τοῦ ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ ἔθνει
ἀσεβοῦς καὶ πλάνου Σιμωνιανοῦ διδάγ-
ματος κατεφρόνησα.) Moreover, that
ι
which were copied and distorted from those of the Church. 233
7 Lastly, in his Second Apology’, he not only enumerates = oe |
Simon and other heretics, who proceeded from his school, δι...
by ‘name, but brands and execrates them as the pest of [268]
Christendom*. But, O tempora! O mores! Who could Ὁ Christi-
have ever thought that the time would come when Justin, °°”
the most distinguished doctor of the Church, who not only
wrote most learned works against all heresies, but actually
sealed with his own blood the true apostolic faith, should
have been brought by any one into suspicion of having been
misled by the foulest aya in a primary doctrine of
Christianity ?
4. But, secondly, it is so far from true that the doctors of
the Church.took their opinion concerning the divine genera-
tion.of the Son from the fictions of the Simonians, that it is,
on the contrary, manifest, that the heretics framed these
fictions of theirs (as nearly every error is an aping of some
truth) from the doctrine of the Church, transferring it into a
form of their own’. The case is clear; for whence, I ask, was ἢ εἰς ἴδιον
that blasphemous assertion of Simon’s, that he alone was both “?*"™""
the. Son who appeared among the Jews, and the Father who
descended in Samaria, and the Holy Ghost who came among |
the Gentiles ;—whence, I repeat, was this borrowed, but from
the received doctrine of the Church respecting the Holy.
Trinity, that is, respecting God the Father, the-Son, and the
Holy Ghost ? Whence the impious dogma of the same Simon,
that Jesus appeared among men as a man, though He was
not a man, and was supposed to have suffered in Judea,
though He did not suffer,—if it be not a distortion of the [269]
apostolic doctrine of Christ God and Man*? For certainly * Θεανθρώ- ᾿
the impostor would have in vain persuaded the Christians ἦτ
that Jesus was not a true man, if the Apostles had taught
that He was a mere man. Lastly, with respect to that
exposition of Cerinthus, (to use Zwicker’s expression,) who
taught that Christ the Son of God descended on Jesus at
the Simonian, together with the here- of my edition, (but p. 70 of the Paris,
sies that succeeded it, was professedly [Apol. i. 26, p. 60,1) “ There is, also, a
opposed by Justin, and refuted in ἃ treatise composed by me against all
short treatise which he wrote, he him- the heresies which have arisen.” (ἔστι
self intimates in what is commonly δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ σύνταγμα κατὰ πασῶν τῶν
called his Second Apology, when, after. γεγενημένων αἱρέσεων συντεταγμένον.)
mentioning bynameSimon,Menander, —Gnrasn.
and Marcion, he at last adds, in p. 54 Pp. 69 and 70. [ Apol. i. 26. p. 59.]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
11
[270]
ΕΝ
234 The true doctrine may be discerned in the perversion.
His baptism, from the principality which is above all things,
and performed mighty works, and at the approach of the
passion flew back again from Jesus to the Father into heaven ;
whence, I ask, could this exposition of Cerinthus have origi-
nated, except in that distinction of the divine from the human
nature in Christ, which was handed down by the Apostles ?
Indeed, both these conceits, viz. that of Simon, concerning the
imaginary body of Christ, and that of Cerinthus, concerning
the separation of the Son of God from the man Jesus, seem
to have been acceptable to not a few, from the very cause
that the august mystery of Christ, God and Man, (that is to —
say, of the union of the divine and human natures in the one
person of Christ,) which had been handed down by the
Apostles, seemed to them (as it does also to the heretics of
this day) absurd, and contrary to sound reason. For on this
account they thought it necessary, either to take away one
nature altogether, or at any rate to separate the one of them
from the other. Let the reader attentively weigh this, and
(to use the words of Zwicker) “if his mind be not per-
verted,” he will be of my opinion.
5. Moreover, that the Church’s doctrine of God the Father
and the Son did not proceed from the school of Simon, but,
on the contrary, that Simon bent the apostolic doctrine to
his own impious dogmas, is sufficiently intimated by tke
very words of Hegesippus, which Zwicker desired his reader
to mark well; namely, that the heretics ‘invented the most
perverse doctrines against God and Christ.” He does not
say (observe) concerning God and Christ, but against God
and Christ. The truth is, this Magus, by a kind of unheard-
of blasphemy, applied to himself ‘and his prostitute Helena, ἡ
and other Aons invented by him, what the apostolic doctrine
taught concerning the Father and the Son. For,. according
to the statement of Irenzus, i. 20%, he used to say, against
God the Father, “ that he was the highest power, that is, the
Father who is over all things, and permitted himself to be
called by whatever name men call Him” (the Eternal Father).
And then, against Christ, he used to allege, that Helena, his
first ἔννοια; or idea, generated the angels and powers, by
& Esse [docuit....autem] se subli- vocari se quodcunque eum vocant ho-
missimam virtutem, hoc est,eum qui mines.-—[c, 23. p. 99.]
sit super omnia Pater, et sustinere
a
Hegesippus ; that the Apostles’ doctrine was taught now. 235
which he said this world was made; “that it was by his grace
men were saved,” &c.
6. I cannot, however, help wondering on what principle
Hegesippus is here adduced as a witness by the author of the
TIrenicum; for none of the ancient writers shews more evi-
dently than Hegesippus, how futile and utterly untrue this
conjecture of his is. Thus, in the book and chapter of Euse-
bius cited before, he expressly testifies that in his own time
the apostolic preaching continued whole and unimpaired
among the rulers of the Church. For after mentioning what
Churches he had visited, and how many bishops he had gone
to, especially those of the Church of Rome, the most eminent
atriarchate, he subjoins these words ἢ: “‘ But in each succes-—
Ρ ’ )
sion [of bishops] and in each city, it is as the law proclaims,
and the prophets, and the Lord.’ Now at what period
did Hegesippus live? without doubt he was contemporary
with Irenzeus, inasmuch as in the same place in Eusebius
CHAP. 11.
§ 4—6.
he makes express mention of Pope Eleutherus, (under whose -
pontificate it is clear that Irenzeus flourished,) as succeeding
Soter in the episcopal seat ; so that Jerome was clearly in
error when he threw back Hegesippus to the age of the.
emperor Adrian, misled, I doubt. not, by Eusebius himself,
who, in his Eccles. Hist. iv. 8, does the same; though after-
wards (in chap. 21 of the same book), as though correcting
that chronological mistake, he places Hegesippus in the reign
of Marcus Antoninus. What a pretty finish has Zwicker now
made of his case out of Hegesippus! He asserts, that the
doctors of the Church, and Justin in particular, being misled
by the ravings of the Simonians, altered the apostolic doc-
trine ; [whereas] Hegesippus himself expressly attests, that
the apostolic preaching was preserved unimpaired by the doc-
tors in the several Churches down to his own times, that is to
say, the times of Irenzeus, who flourished thirty years, be it
more or less, after Justin. Surely the author of the Irenicum
would not have ventured to appeal to Hegesippus, if he had
thoroughly known his man; without doubt his own opinion
hastily formed about that ancient writer misled him. But
this shall be clearly shewn in the following chapter. _
h ἐν ἑκάστῃ δὲ διαδοχῇ καὶ ἐν ἑκά- [Euseb. H. BE. iv. 22.]
στῃ πόλει οὕτως ἔχει, ὡς ὁ νόμος κηρύτ- i See the note of Valesius on the
τει, καὶ οἱ προφῆται, καὶ 6 Κύριος.---ο passage.
».
[271]
12
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH
[272]
1 ratiun-
culis.
CHAPTER III.
CONCERNING HEGESIPPUS, AND HIS OPINION RESPECTING THE PERSON OF
JESUS CHRIST.
1. THE author of the Jrenicum every where speaks of He-
gesippus as a man of like sentiments with himself, that is,
an Ebionite,—one of that class of persons, who, while they
— acknowledged that Christ was conceived of a Virgin ‘by the
Holy Ghost, yet did not at all allow His preexistence, as
the Word of God, before the worlds. And he has been
followed by all the Socinians of this day here in England,
who claim this very ancient and celebrated writer as their
own; and on him as their foundation raise up a superstruc-_
ture of wonderful conclusions, such as would, if they were
true, wholly overthrow the Apostolic tradition, which we
maintain, of the true divinity of our Saviour Christ. Of
these, the author of the treatise entitled, “'The Judgment of
the Fathers,” especially, maintained strenuously *, that Hege-
sippus was altogether an Ebionite, and endeavoured to esta-
blish this opinion by some shallow * reasons, which we here
propose to examine.
2. Argument 1. “In the first place,” he says, “ Hegesippus
was himself a Jewish Christian, as Eusebius, Eccles. Hist.
iv. 22, witnesses ; but all Jewish Christians, saith Origen, were
Ebionites, that is, denied the divinity of Christ.” I answer;
If by a Jewish Christian the sophist means a Christian who
mixed up the observance of the ceremonial law of Moses with —
belief in Christ; it is utterly false that Eusebius has any
where stated, that Hegesippus was a Jewish Christian of this
class. All he says in the passage referred to is, that from
the writings of Hegesippus it may be gathered, “ that he was
a believer from among the Hebrews” (ἐξ “Εβραίων ἑαυτὸν
πεπιστευκέναι). Nay, that Hegesippus was certainly not a
* Pages 41, 42.
_ Hegesippus himself; who in Eusebius (Eccles. Hist. iv. 22)
Hegesippus ; not an Ebionite, as alleged. - 357
Jewish Christian of the kind alleged, we know for certain from γήραος ΠῚ,
relates, that on his way to Rome he visited many Churches
of Christians of the Gentiles, and held communion. with
them; and after his arrival at Rome, continued a long time -
in communion with that illustrious Church. Accordingly,
Eusebius (Eccles. Hist. iv. 21) expressly says, that Hegesippus
“flourished in the Church,” (ἤκμαζεν ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας,) ἴῃ.
the same Catholic Church, that is, in which at the same
time Irenzeus and other men who were undoubtedly Catholic
flourished, with whom he is joined in that same passage.
- But the Christians of the Jews, who together with belief in
Christ retained the observance of the ceremonial law, neither
could, nor indeed wished to, live in communion with any
Church of the Gentiles. Moreover, it is not true that the
Jews who persevered in observing the law of Moses after [273]
receiving the faith of Christ, were all Ebionites, that is,
denied the divinity of Christ: nor does Origen anywhere say
this. See what we have written in the Judgment of the
Catholic Church, 11. 18. [p. 53.]
3. Argument 2. Our Ebionite goes on with his arguments ;
“ Secondly,” says he, “the same Eusebius (ibid.) says, that
Hegesippus made use of St. Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel, which
was used only by the Ebionites and Unitarian Christians.”
I answer; Eusebius does indeed say, that Hegesippus in his
. writings adduced some things out of the Gospel of the He-
brews; but he by no means says, that he used that Gospel
as the Ebionites used it; that is, regarded it as a canonical
book. Now, if quoting some passages from the Gospel
according to the Hebrews be a sure mark of an Ebionite, then
must very many writers be regarded as Ebionites, whom yet
we certainly know to have been Catholics, and-to have had a
thorough abhorrence of the heresy of Ebion. For in that
case, even Jerome, the strenuous advocate of the Consubstan-
tiality of the Son- of God, was himself an Ebionite, for he
repeatedly cites that Gospel, and even translated it into the
Greek and the Latin languages, as he tells us himself”.
Hence Julian the Pelagian, in book iv., charges Jerome with
using, in his Dialogue against the Pelagians, the testimony
> Cat. Script, Eccl. on James, the Lord’s brother,
238 ‘ Gospel according to the Hebrews’ cited by Catholics.
priutrive Of a fifth Gospel, which he had himself translated into Latin.
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[274]
13
τ΄ dormi-
tantem.
ἜΝ appear-
ed.’ But.
3 τοὺς περὶ
Πέτρον.
In that case, Origen also was an Ebionite, notwithstanding
that (against Celsus, v. p. 272°) he rejected the Ebionites
of both kinds as heretics and altogether alien from the Church
τὰς Christ ; for Jerome expressly writes 4, that Origen often
used the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Moreover Papias,
who, as we are told by Irenzeus °, was the disciple of John and
companion of Polycarp, gave in his writings a more lengthened
history of the conversations between our Saviour and the
woman taken in adultery, which was found only in the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, as Eusebius states in Eccles. Hist.
iii, 89, near the end‘. Now all the ancient Catholic writers
who have mentioned him testify, that Papias, although a
man of mean ability, and mistaken’ in some things, was yet
Catholic, and firmly maintained the rule of faith. Lastly,
to mention no others, the blessed Ignatius, the distinguished
defender of the great mystery of godliness respecting God
‘incarnate, against the heretics of his own time, has, in his
Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, some things of which
Eusebius confesses that he does not know from what source
they are derived; Kccles. Hist. 111. 86. Eusebius says’; “In
his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, speaking of our Saviour,
he quotes some words of His, but whence he took them 1.
know not. His words are, ‘But I ἜΘΕΙΝ and believe that
even after His resurrection, He was’ in the flesh, and when
He came to Peter and those who were with’ him®*, He said
unto them, Take hold of Me, handle Me, and see that.I am
not a spirit without a body; and immediately they touched
Him and believed.’ ” Now this narrative about Christ is
taken from the Gospel according to the Hebrews; a fact,
which, though unknown to Eusebius, Jerome has informed
© [8 61. pp. 624, 625.]
4 See two passages of Origen, in
which he cited the Gospel according
to the Hebrews, as well as another of
Clement of Alexandria, in my Spicile-
giumPatrum, seec.1. p.26, seq.— GRABE.
[See Origen, de Orat. 14. vol. i. p. 219,
&c.; 6. Cels. vii. 41. pp. 726, 727 ; also
Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 24. p. 4161
6 Lib. v. ὁ. 33.
f (Eusebius only says, ἐκτέθειται δὲ
kal ἄλλην ἱστορίαν περὶ yuvaixds, ἐπὶ
πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις διαβληθείσης ἐπὶ τοῦ
κυρίου, ἣν τὸ κατ᾽ Ἑ βραίους εὐαγγέλιον
περιέχει. loc. cit. }
& [Eusebius’ words are:—6é δ᾽ αὐτὸς
Σμυρναίοις γράφων οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὁπόθεν ῥητοῖς
συγκέχρηται, τοιαῦτά τινὰ περὶ τοῦ
Χριστοῦ διεξιών" ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ μετὰ τὴν
ἀνάστασιν. ἐν σαρκὶ αὐτὸν olda καὶ πι-
στεύω ὕντα. καὶ ὅτε πρὸς τοὺς περὶ
Πέτρον ἐλήλυθεν, ἔφη αὐτοῖς" λάβετε,
ψηλαφήσατέ μεακαὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ
δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον" καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτοῦ
ἤψαντο καὶ ἐπίστευσαν. Bishop Bull ᾿
gives only a Latin version.]
His not mentioning the Ebionites as heretics, no argument, 239
us of in his treatise on Ecclesiastical Writers, [in the section] cmap. m.
on Ignatius. —
4, Argument 3. His third argument is thus summarily
stated by the author; “In short, I say, Hegesippus (in
Euseb. ibid.) giving a catalogue of the heresies of the Jews
and Gentiles, does not account either the Cerinthians or [275]
Ebionites among the heretics ; which he certainly would have
done, if he himself had held the preexistence and divinity of
our Saviour.” To this I reply; Who can patiently endure a
man, when he thus trifles in a matter so serious and of such
moment? For in the first place, does he seriously suppose
that Hegesippus, in the passage referred to, meant to give
a complete catalogue of all the heretics who disturbed the
Church in his own age, and whom he himself regarded as
heretics? If so, he knew nothing at all of the work on
Heresies’ by Irenzeus, the contemporary of Hegesippus. ᾿ heresio-
Secondly, Does he seriously believe that Hegesippus did not !°sia™-
reckon the Cerinthians as heretics? In that case, at any
rate, he knows as little about the opinions of Cerinthus as
the most ignorant, and he who has ventured to write a book
about the Judgment of the Fathers, was quite a stranger to
the writings of the early fathers. Cerinthus, besides the
error which he held in common with Ebion, of Christ’s being
a mere man, taught other absurd and blasphemous tenets.
For he affirmed, as we said before, that this visible world was
not created by the Supreme God, but by inferior powers or
angels, who knew not that God; that the Angel, who gave
the law by Moses to the children of Israel, was a bad angel,
&c. Indeed Epiphanius, On Heresies, xxviii., informs us that
Cerinthus maintained nearly all the horrible “errors of Car-
pocrates, and only differed from that monster im that he
observed the Mosaic ceremonies, and that not from his heart,
but only for his own convenience, to ingratiate himself with
the Jews, and escape the persecutions raised by them. See
what we have said in our Defence of the Nicene Creed, iii.
1. 7. [p. 379.] But what shall we say? Did not Hegesippus
hold this monster among men to be a heretic ? Lastly, by this
very argument of our sophist it might equally be proved that
Justin Martyr also was an Ebionite or Unitarian, that is, did
not acknowledge the preexistence and divinity of our Saviour. [276]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH,
240 Many early heresies omitted by each several writer.
For in his disputation against Trypho Justin enumerates
just as many heresies of the Jews as Hegesippus does, namely,
seven in all, though he calls them by different names, His
words are the following"; “ Just as no one, if he rightly
considers the subject, would say that the Sadducees, or the
similar heresies of the Geniste and Meristz, the Galileans,
and Hellenians, and the Pharisees, [and] the Baptists, were
Jews.” Here the Cerinthians and the Ebionites are omitted.
In another passage‘ of the same Dialogue, he enumerates
by name some heresies which had arisen among Christians,
the Marcionites, the Valentinians, the Basilians, and the Satur-
nilians, But neither here is there any mention of the Cerin-
thians or Ebionites. From this a person might argue thus:
Justin when enumerating the heretics, both Jewish and Chris-
tian, does not enumerate either the Cerinthians or Ebionites
among them; but he would undoubtedly have done so, if he
had himself believed our Saviour’s preexistence and divinity.
Yet who is there that does not know that Justin not only
_ himself believed the divinity of Christ, but also vehemently
Be Hg
14
and strenuously defended that doctrine against both Jews
and Judaizing Christians? You will say that Justin, ‘after
the Christian heretics whom he names, adds, “ and others
bearing different names” (καὶ ἄλλοι ἄλλῳ ὀνόματι). I grant
it; but then does not Hegesippus in reality do the same?
Surely he does.. For after the Christian heretics whom he
enumerates by name he immediately subjoins « ; “ Fiom these
[arose] false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided
the unity of the Church by their pernicious words against God
and against His Christ.” In these words all the heretics who
arose after, and out of, those whom he had previously men-
tioned, are certainly comprehended,
5. Argument 4, The last argument of our sophist is as
follows ; ““ Valesius,” he says, “owns that the ecclesiastical
history of Hegesippus was lost by the ancients, because it
was observed to agree with the Unitarians.” My answer to
h ay οὐδὲ ᾿Ιουδαίους, ἄν τις ὀρθῶς ἱ P. 253. [8 35. pp. 132, 133.]
ἐξετάσῃ, ὁμολογήσειεν εἶναι τοὺς Σαδ- k “Gard τούτων ψευδόχριστοι, ψευδοπρο-
δουκαίους, ἣ τὰς ὁμοίας αἱρέσεις Teviorav φήται, ψευδαπόστολοι᾽ οἵτινες ἐμέρισαν
καὶ Μεριστῶν, καὶ Γαλιλαίων, καὶ Ἕλλη- τὴν ἕνωσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας φθοριμαίοις
νιανῶν, καὶ Φαρισαίων, (καὶ) Βαπτιστῶν. λόγοις κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ κατὰ τοῦ
--- Πἰαίοσαθ with Trypho, p. 307.[§ 806, Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ.---ἰ ἸσΒ6 0. H. E. loc.
pp. 132, 133.] cit. | :
~~»
OLE OI
~
Evidence of the orthodoxy of Hegesippus. 241
this is; It is plainly untrue that Valesius has anywhere
allowed this; he only says in general that the writings of
Hegesippus and other ancient authors fell into neglect, and
were consequently lost, because of the errors with which they
abounded. His words are'; “ Owing, however, to the errors
with which they” (the books of Clement’s ὑποτυπώσεις)
“ abounded, they were neglected, and ultimately lost. Nor,
in my opinion, is it from any other cause that the works of
_ Papias and Hegesippus, and other early writers, have
perished.” With respect, however, to Hegesippus, I know
not what errors Valesius suspected him to have fallen into;
certainly the ancient Catholic writers who had read the works
of Hegesippus, (and who ought-to be trusted in preference
to Valesius,) recommended their contents as orthodox, useful,
and worth reading, as we shall presently see. And thus far
have we examined the shallow reasonings of the sophist. But
against these arguments of his, of less weight, certainly, than.
CHAP. UT.
§ 4—6.
the lightest things *, we set the testimonies of the ancients ! farfari
respecting Hegesippus, who classed him among Catholics, iin
and even among the very highest ornaments of the primitive
~ Catholic Church.
6. First.of all, Eusebius, who made use of the papers Τοῦ" A fainienig
Hegesippus, and transcribed much out of his Commentaries vit.
into his own history, everywhere makes honourable mention
of him, in particular extolling throughout with wonderful
praise his orthodoxy and his truly apostolic doctrine. If,
however, Hegesippus had been an Ebionite, Eusebius cer-
tainly never would have done this, since, as we have elsewhere
_ shewn*, he accounted the Ebionites impious heretics, even
those of them, who, though they acknowledged that Christ
was conceived of the Virgin by the Holy Ghost, denied
His preexistence before the world as “ God the Word and
᾿ς Wisdom” (Θεὸν Λόγον καὶ Σοφίαν). Nay more, he com-
mpila-
[278]
mends* Hegesippus as a most courageous champion of the 5 quid,
Catholic faith against the heretics of his time! An admirable
assailant of heretics, forsooth, when he was himself a heretic!
Hear what Eusebius himself says, in Eccles. Hist. book iv.
chap. 7, at the end, compared with the beginning of the
-- Annot. in Euseb. v, 11. [p. 223.]
™ See the Judgment of the Catholic Church, ii. 11. [p. 89.]
BULL.—J. C. 6. R
quod col-
laudet.
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHUROH,
[279]
242 Eusebius’ testimony to the orthodoxy of Hegesippus.
following chapter"; ‘ But nevertheless in these times the
truth again put forth many defenders, who contended against
the impious heresies, not by oral refutations only, but also
by written demonstrations. Amongst these Hegesippus was
distinguished, whose words we have already very often used,
exhibiting from his tradition some of the events of the
apostolic times. This author compiled in five books the
true tradition of the apostolic preaching, in a very simple
style of writing.” Parallel to this is the statement con-
tained in chap. 21 of the same book®; “ At that period there
flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from
what has been said before ; and Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth;
and Pinytus, another of the Bishops of Crete; and besides
these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, [and Musanus,
and Modestus,]|. and lastly Irenzeus ; the orthodoxy of whose
apostolical tradition, out of a sound faith, has come down
even to our times in writing.” And at the beginning of the
next chapter he adds these words again, concerning Hege-
sippus?; “ Hegesippus then in the five books of his Com-
mentaries, which have come down to us, has left us the fullest
record of his own belief.” ; ,
7. What has our adversary now to oppose to these most
clear testimonies of Eusebius concerning Hegesippus? Hear;
after producing the arguments by which he wished to prove
that Hegesippus was a Unitarian, he immediately adds the
following; “If it be said, But did not Eusebius know this,”
(namely, that Hegesippus was a Unitarian,) “‘and yet he
always speaks respectfully of Hegesippus ? I answer, Without
doubt he knew it; but durst not take notice of it; it was not
for Eusebius to find fault with an apostolic father. He could
2 [ὅμως δ᾽ οὖν κατὰ τοὺς δηλουμένους
αὖθις παρῆγεν εἰς μέσον | ἀλήθεια πλεί-
ovs ἑαυτῆς ὑπερμάχους, οὗ δ ἀγράφων
αὐτὸ μόνον ἐλέγχων, ἀλλὰ καὶ BV ἐγ-
ράφων ἀποδείξεων κατὰ τῶν ἀθέων
αἱρέσεων στρατευομένους. ἐν τούτοις
ἐγνωρίζετο Ἡγήσιππος, οὗ πλείσταις ἤδη
πρότερον κεχρήμεθα φωναῖς, ὡς ἂν ἐκ
τῆς αὐτοῦ παραδόσεώς τινα τῶν κατὰ
τοὺς ἀποστόλους παρατιθέμενοι. ἐν πέντε
δὴ οὖν συγγράμμασιν οὗτος τὴν ἀπλανῆ
παράδοσιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγματος
ἁπλουστάτῃ συντάξει γραφῆς ὑπομνη-
ματισάμενος.---- ἘΠ 56}0: Eccles. Hist. iv.7. ]
ο [ἤκμαζον δὲ ἐν τούτοις ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκ-
κλησίας Ἡ γήσιππός τε ὃν ἴσμεν ἐκ τῶν
προτέρων, καὶ Διονύσιος Κορινθίων ἐπί-
σκοπος, Πινυτός τε ἄλλος τῶν ἐπὶ Κρή-
τὴς ἐπίσκοπος, Φίλιππός τε ἐπὶ τούτοις
καὶ ᾿Απολινάριος καὶ Μελίτων, Μουσανός
τε καὶ Μοδέστιος, καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν Eipn-
ναῖος᾽ ὧν καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς τῆς ἀποστολικῆς
παραδόσεως ἣ τῆς ὑγιοῦς πίστεως ἔγγρα-
gos κατῆλθεν ὀρθοδοξία. —Ibid. iv. 21.]
P [ὁ μὲν οὖν Ἡγήσιππος ἐν πέντε τοῖς
εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθοῦσιν ὑπομνήμασι τῆς ἰδίας
γνώμης πληρεστάτην μνήμην καταλέ-
λοιπεν.--- 14, iv. 22.]
Works and opinions of Hegesippus well known at that time. 345.
dissemble his knowledge of what the Unitarians (and particu- omar. τι,
larly his antagonist Marcellus,) would not fail to make advan- a?
tage.” Now what man of sound mind on hearing this answer
is not at once amazed? Surely, if Hegesippus had been an
Ebionite, and Eusebius was aware of it, the latter not only did
wrong in dissembling what he knew to be true, but even told
a direct lie. For he not only does not say that Hegesippus
was an Ebionite, but expressly declares the contrary, namely,
that he was altogether Catholic, and had in his writings stated
the apostolic tradition and doctrine purely and sincerely.
Nay, he even was shameless in his falsehood. For the Com-
mentaries of Hegesippus were not read by Eusebius alone,
but were constantly in the hands’ of many readers, at least 1 manibus
of the learned ; for both on account of the venerable antiquity ¢>™'™™
of their author, as well as the valuable matter of which they [280]
treated, (their subject being the events of the apostolic age,
and of the period next after the apostolic,) these Commenta-
ries were very widely known, and attracted the study of all
lovers of antiquity. So that on such a point as this, it was
not open to Eusebius to lie safely and securely, since he
would so easily have been convicted of manifest falsehood,
and have exposed himself, on the detection of his fraud, to 15
the hatred of all lovers of truth. Then again, what he says
is most ridiculous, about Eusebius’s not daring to charge
Hegesippus with error, because he was an “apostolic father.”
For if Hegesippus was really an Ebionite, he could not have
been accounted an apostolic. father by the Catholic Church,
to which especially it concerned Eusebius to approve himself.
In the last place, by this [alleged] falsehood of his, Eusebius
would have made himself disliked by both Catholics and
heretics: he would have offended the Catholics, by honouring
a heretic with such praises; and would have displeased the
heretics, by depriving them of so great a patron of their
heresy, and assigning him to the Catholic party. It is with
shame and vexation that I dwell upon these so palpable follies
of the sophist. Let us therefore proceed to other points.
8. Not only Eusebius, but other ancient Catholic writers
also, have borne witness to the orthodoxy of Hegesippus. -
Thus Jerome not merely praises him for the great holiness of
his life, but likewise commends his writings (which he had
R 2
we
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF TEE
CATHOLIO
©HUROH.
1 omnes
ecclesiasti-
corum ac-
tuum tex-
ens histo-
rias.
[281]
2 sectaba-
tur,
244 Jerome’s testimony. Hegesippus says, the Churches of
himself also read,) as containing much that is useful to his
readers. For in his catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, he
speaks thus of Hegesippus1; “ Hegesippus, who lived near
the times of the Apostles, and put together all the accounts
of what took place in the Church’, from our Lord’s Passion
to his own age, collecting from every quarter much that —
tended to the benefit of his readers, composed five books in
a simple style; as if he would express the style of speaking
of those whose life he was tracing’.” If, indeed, Jerome had
discovered in the writings of Hegesippus any tares of heresy
mingled with the good wheat of. sound doctrine, he would,
without doubt, have reminded his reader of them, in order
that he might be on his guard against them. But if he had
found Hegesippus to have been an Ebionite, he would not
have let him slip out of his hands with impunity, and without
any mark of censure, much less have honoured him with so
high an eulogium; for no one was a greater enemy to that
“ God-denying *”’ heresy than Jerome. By Gobarus also, in
Photius (Cod. 232), Hegesippus is designated as “an ancient
and apostolic man,” (ἀρχαῖός τε ἀνὴρ Kal ἀποστολικός) ;—
ancient, in respect of the time when he lived ; apostolic, from -
the sanctity and purity of his life and doctrine.
9. Let us now at last hear Hegesippus speak for himself. —
He tells us, (in Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. iv. 22, the very chapter
from which the sophist would fain have proved Hegesippus
to have been an Ebionite,) that* “ when on his way to Rome,
he conversed with very many bishops, and heard one and the
same doctrine from them all.”” He then adds, “ And the
Church of Corinth continued in the right doctrine down to
Primus who was [then] bishop at Corinth, with whom I had
intercourse when on my voyage to Rome, and spent several
days with the Corinthians, during which we were mutually
refreshed by right doctrine. And when I was in Rome I made
4 Hegesippus vicinus apostolicorum
temporum, et omnes a passione Do-
mini usque ad suam etatem ecclesi-
asticorum actuum texens historias,
multaque ad utilitatem legentium
pertinentia hine inde congregans,
quinque libros composuit sermone
simplici; ut quorum vitam sectabatur,
dicendi quoque exprimeret characte-
rem.—[ce. 22. vol. ii. p. 849. ]
τ [ὡς πλείστοις ἐπισκόποις συμμίξειεν,
ἀποδημίαν στειλάμενος μέχρι Ῥώμης,
καὶ ὡς ὅτι τὴν αὐτὴν παρὰ πάντων παρεί-
ληφε διδασκαλίαν. «... καὶ ἐπέμενεν
h ἐκκλησία ἡ Κορινθίων ἐν τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ
μέχρι Πρίμου ἐπισκοπεύοντος ἐν Κορίνθῳ"
οἷς συνέμιξα πλέων εἰς Ῥώμην, καὶ συνδι-
έτριψα τοῖς Κορινθίοις ἡμέρας ἱκανὰς, ἐν
αἷς συνανεπάημεν τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ. γενό-
μενος δὲ ἐν Ῥώμῃ διαδοχὴν ἐποιήσαμην
ἣ
υ
:
᾿
;
his time held the Apostolic faith; what this was, shewn. 245
out the succession as far as Anicetus *, to whom Eleutherus omar. mr.
was deacon.” He afterwards subjoins the following words ; oe
““ And in each succession [of bishops], and in each city, it is so
as the law taught, and the prophets, and our Lord Himself.”
Hegesippus therefore approved the doctrine of the Catholic [282]
Church of his own time as true, and entirely consonant to
the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and also to
primitive and apostolic tradition. Now, what the doctrine of
the Catholic Church in the age of Hegesippus was, you may
learn with certainty from Irenzus, his contemporary. Out
of many passages of this writer I will here adduce but two.
In book i. chap. 19‘, he thus describes the rule of truth in
_ the Catholic Church, as it was everywhere received in his
- own day; “ But since we hold ‘the rule of truth, 7. 6. that
there is one God Almighty, who created and set in order ' all 1 aptavit.
things through His Word, and out of that which was ποὺ.
made, all things to exist, as the Scripture saith, ‘For by the
Word of the Lord were the heavens made’, and all the host 2 firmati.
of them by the breath [Spirit] of His mouth*;’ and again, * [Psalm
‘All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any- ned
thing made *.’ Now from all things there is nothing excepted ; ‘ f ohn i,
but through Him did the Father make all things, whether 5
visible or invisible; whether objects of sense or objects of
understanding; whether things temporal with reference to
some dispensation’, or things everlasting and eternal’; [by ὁ propter
Him,| not by angels, nor by any powers cut’ off from His disposi
mind, (for the God of all stands in need of nothing,) but tionem.
through His Word and Spirit, making, and disposing, and ae
governing, and giving being to all things.” Now was it
possible for any Ebionite to approve of this confession of
faith? The other passage occurs in book iii. chap. 3, at the
very beginning, compared with chap. 4 of the same book.
At the commencement of the third chapter he thus writes,
respecting the tradition of the Catholic Church"; “The
tradition therefore of the Apostles manifested in all the
᾿ μέχρις ᾿Ανικήτου, οὗ διάκονος ἣν Ἐλεύ-
θερος -. . ἐν ἑκάστῃ δὲ διαδοχῇ καὶ ἐν
ἑκάστῃ πόλει οὕτως ἔχει ὡς ὁ νόμος κη-
would read διατριβήν for διαδοχήν.
t [6. 22. p. 98. See the Latin cited
above, Judy. Cath. Church, chap. iv.
ρύττει καὶ of προφῆται καὶ ὁ ΚύριοΞ.---
Euseb. loc. cit.]
* [Bull has “mansi ibi apud Anice-
tum,” following Ruffinus; so Valesius
§ 5. p. 74. note |.)
ἃ Traditionem itaque apostolorum
in toto mundo manifestatam in omni
ecclesia adest respicere omnibus qui
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 annume-
- rare.
[283]
2 ab his
deliratur.
16
3 ‘figmen-
tum.
[284]
246 The belief of the Church in the time of Hegesippus.
world may be seen in every Church by all who desire to
behold the truth; and we are able to reckon up! those
who were appointed by the Apostles to be bishops in the
Churches, and their successors down to ourselves, who have
neither taught, nor known, any such thing as these men
madly imagine’.” He is here speaking of a universal
tradition, manifested throughout the whole world, and in
_ every Church, (that is, in the language of Hegesippus,
“in each succession of bishops and in each city;”) and
so manifested as to be capable of being easily seen by all
lovers of truth, and such as were not wilfully blind. What
this universal and. manifest tradition was, he thus clearly
unfolds in the chapter immediately following’; “ But what
if the Apostles even had not left the Scriptures to us, would
it not have been our duty to follow the order of the tradition,
which they delivered to those to whom they committed the
Churches? To this appointment many nations of those
barbarians, who believe in Christ, give their assent ; having
salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without paper
and ink, and carefully guarding the ancient tradition, believ-
ing in one God, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all
things which are therein, through Jesus Christ, the Son of
God; who out of His most eminent love to His own creation *
endured the birth of the Virgin, Himself by Himself ae
man -to God.”
10. From this it is as clear as can be, that Hegesippus was
quite Catholic, and, with the Catholic Church of his time,
believed in the Son of God, existing before all worlds, by
whom all things were made, and who at the appointed time
Himself became man for us men. Most idle, therefore, are —
all those conclusions which our Unitarians have drawn from _
the opposite supposition (that Hegesippus, 1 mean, was an
Ebionite). Hear the author of the Judgment of the Fathers,
&c., as he thus argues from that hypothesis; “1 Hegesippus
(Unitarian Hegesippus),’”’ says ποῦ, “was the author whom
Eusebius followed in the account he gives of the first fifteen
vera velint videre; et habemus annu- quale ab his deliratur. —{g 1. p.175.]
merare 608 qui ab Apostolis*instituti v [See the Latin cited above, Judg.
sunt episcopi in ecclesiis, et succes- Cath. Church, chap. iv: §7. p. 78. ὁ
sores ecorum usque ad nos, qui nibil note ™.]
tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt, x pp. 42, 48,
Erroneous inferences of Unitarian writers. 247
bishops of Jerusalem, that they ‘ professed the true know- omar. m1..
ledge of Christ,’ which will not be questioned by any dias, 2 meee:
are conversant in Eusebius, &c., we have gained another very
great point; namely this, that not only the Jewish Chris-
tians, but those of Rome, and all the great Churches to
which Hegesippus had resorted to know their doctrine and
discipline, were also Unitarians ; that is, held (with Hege-
sippus) that the Lord Christ is a man only. For he saith
(apud Euseb. iv. 22) that he travelled to Rome, where he .
lived under the popes Anicetus, Soter, and Eleutherus; but
both here and in all other episcopates, they keep the doc-
trines taught by the law and the prophets, and by our
Saviour; briefly, he owns that he found the Churches every-
where to be orthodox and uniform; of which, if he was a
Unitarian, as (I think) I have proved, the meaning can be
only this, that they believed, as the Jewish Christians do, the
Lord Christ is a man, the prophet and messenger of God,
on whom the Logos, or Divine Word, rested. This perfectly
agrees with the account that the old Unitarians,”’ that is, the
Artemonites, “ (in Eusebius) give; namely, that they had
kept the doctrine delivered by the Apostles, and which was
professed everywhere, till the opposition made to it by the
popes Victor and Zephyrin, who succeeded to Eleutherus,
as he to Soter, and Soter to Anicetus, with which orthodox
popes Hegesippus had conversed.”? Now, these conclusions’, * πορίσμα-
which the sophist deduces from his own hypothesis, respecting “”
the faith and sentiments of Hegesippus, are so absurd, and [285]
- 80 clearly repugnant to authentic’ ecclesiastical history, that-? certe.
if he had only- had a single grain of common sense and
-candour in him, he must have certainly perceived that that
hypothesis is untrue, as indeed it is most untrue.
11, Nevertheless, the insanity of this writer has also
affected the author’ of a little work entitled, “The true and
ancient Faith concerning the Divinity of Christ, asserted
against Dr. George Bull’s Judgment of the Catholic Church,”
&e. For in pp.-178, 179, 180 of this writer, you may read
the following; “And here I must entreat my reader to
y [The work is in Latin; the title Bulli Judicium Ecclesia,” &c. The
is, Vera et antiqua Fides de Divini- author was Gilbert Clerke. See the
tate Christi, aperta contra D, Ὁ. ὁ, Life of Bull, pp. 4—8.]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE ἢ
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 quales
quales sint.
[286]
2 indigita-
verit.
17
248 Arguments of an Unitarian writer on the
observe, that all the works of those followers of the Apostles
who did not plunge headlong into Platonism, have perished.
Among others, which have either been accidentally lost or
intentionally destroyed, we have to lament the treatises of
the Christians of the circumcision, among whom Hegesip-
pus, a man of high repute, had composed an ecclesiastical
history of the earliest times; and the errors that are im-
puted to him by the Platonizing Christians are the cause
of our having lost this most valuable history. Valesius
coincides in opinion with me; for he makes the following
observation on Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. v. 11; ‘ These books,’
(meaning the Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria,)
‘owing to the errors with which they abounded, were neg-
lected, and at last lost. Nor, in my judgment, was it from
any other cause that the works of Papias and Hegesippus,
and other ancients, have been lost.’ With these he also |
classes the history of Hegesippus; and it is not very difficult
to conjecture the errors into which Hegesippus fell; for those _
Christians, such as they are’; who in old times Platonized, or
who do so now, call everything an error which does not agree
with their own ‘hypothesis concerning God the Word, be-
gotten, not made. Hegesippus was by race a Jew, one of
those whom the Gentile proselytes especially laboured to
expose to envy, hatred, and injury, owing to their own error
about the pre-existence. And there is no doubt, that the —
errors of which he was accused, he held in common with
the Nazarene Christians; and also, that by ‘ the virgin
Church,’ of which he speaks in Eusebius, he understood that
of the circumcision, which altogether abhorred Platonism ;
and that by ‘the seduction of error,’ which arose in the
reigns of Trajan and Adrian, he pointed to’ Plato’s philo-
sophy, which at that time was being introduced into the
Church ; a philosophy which was so framed as to adulterate
shamefully the Christian religion, grossly changing, and by
the change all but utterly destroying it. This, as we-read,
the Apostles themselves also had predicted; and it is so
true and manifest [in itself], that even Valesius, I observe,
has a note on the passage of Eusebius just now quoted’, to
the effect that that father had given too wide a sense to the
2 Eccles. Hist. iii. 32.
i a te i tele
Se δυδμα..,. 4] ν᾿
belief of the Church before the time of Justin. 249
words of Hegesippus, and that what Hegesippus had said omar. mt.
only of the virgin state of the Church of Jerusalem, he had “eet
applied to the whole Catholic Church.
“ Now, this is a matter of great importance, and deserves
especially to be observed; for by it Hegesippus designates
the fatal epoch when Christian bishops, who had not long
‘before been heathen philosophers, succeeded to the Nazarene
bishops, and, consequently, when Platonism took the place of
that pure and simple truth which the successors of James had
preached. This happened in the very reign of Adrian, when
all the Jews, together with the Christians of the circumcision,
were driven out of Judea. Sulpitius Severus, ii. 45, not
without reason, said, that ‘the Christian faith,’ that is,
(according to his notion,) the Platonic faith, ‘gained no [287]
small advantage from that dispersion ;? because, indeed, at 3
that. time, when the primitive faith, which the Nazarenes ᾿
had preserved whole and unimpaired, was not able to hinder
the progress of Platonism, the fatal evil spread itself far and
wide.” Anda little after he says; “This is the very thing of
which the followers of Artemon complain, in Eusebius, Eccl.
Hist. v. 28, namely, ‘that all the ancients, and.the Apostles
themselves, both received and taught what they themselves
at present profess ; and indeed that the true preaching of the
Gospel was carefully guarded down to the times of Victor,
who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter; but that
from the days of Zephyrinus, Victor’s successor, the truth
was corrupted.’ ”” Now there is this peculiarity in this author,
that he very ignorantly, or at any rate unblushingly, abuses
~ the authority of Sulpitius Severus for the establishing of his
own dreams; “ Sulpitius Severus,” he says, “ book 11. 45,
affirms, ‘that the Christian faith,’ ὁ: 6. (according to his
notion,) the Platonic faith, ‘ gained no small advantage from
that dispersion,’ ”? (namely. of the Christians of the circum. .
cision in the time of Adrian,) “ because indeed at that time
when the primitive faith, which the Nazarenes had preserved
whole and unimpaired, was not able to stop the progress of
Platonism, the fatal evil spread itself far and wide.” But
Sulpitius, in the passage cited, expressly says, that the Chris-
tians of Jerusalem, who were of the circumcision, previous
to their dispersion .under Adrian, “believed that Christ was
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
' OF THE
ΘΑΈΒΟΙΔΟ
CHURCH
[288]
[289]
1 minime.
2
TOV.
ἀνυπόστα-
250 The early Christians believed the Personality of the Word,
God.” ‘Andno less expressly does he say that-the advantage
which the Christian faith gained from that dispersion con-
sisted in this, that by that event, “the bondage of the law
was taken away from the liberty of the faith and of the
Church.” About the irruption of Platonism-into the Church,
through this door being opened, he did not even dream.
12. No one, however, can possibly wonder at the folly of-
this writer, who has observed what paradoxes he has presumed
to publish and defend in the face of the Christian world.
For in pp. 152, 153 he thus writes ; “ When therefore the
primitive Christians discoursed about Jesus Christ as far
superior to a mere man, or as the pre-existing Word, who
was in the beginning with God, they simply meant that Holy
Spirit or divine Power, which created the world and formed
the body of Jesus Christ, inhabited it, when formed, and
used it, as it were, for a temple, from which henceforth pub-
licly to deliver the oracles of God.
~ “This was their true and genuine opinion respecting the
article now in dispute; which indeed afterwards began to
undergo considerable change, because the disciples of these
men, through their deep prejudices in favour of the Platonic
Trinity, distinguished between the Word and the Spirit;
and so by their idle Platonic subtlety assigned these syno-
nymous expressions to [two] different things.” He eagerly
contends that this was the genuine opinion of Ignatius,
Irenzeus, and other most early fathers; and throughout his
work affirms, that according to the Scriptures and the primi-
tive fathers the chief excellence of our Saviour, by reason of
which He is spoken of as God, by no means consists in His
having existed before all worlds, and in all things having been
made by Him, but only in this,—that He was conceived in a
wonderful manner of the Virgin by the Holy Ghost, having
had no existence before that conception. But any man
who after reading the primitive fathers can make such an
assertion, must have entirely lost all conscience, or at least
all reason and judgment. For, 1, It is most certain that the
primitive fathers, by the Word which existed before the
creation of the world, and by whom the world was made,
did not’ mean any impersonal?’ power of God, but a “ living
and subsisting Word,”-which we usually call ‘‘a Person.”
ae
and that His Incarnation was an act of condescension. 901
‘2. It is equally certain, that those primitive fathers held the ‘omar. ae
Word to be a Person distinct from God the Father and the δ᾿ -
Holy Ghost. 8. Lastly, it is most evident that they did not
by any means make the highest dignity and excellence of
our Saviour’s Person to consist in His wonderful conception
of the blessed Virgin by the Holy Ghost; but, on the con-
trary, entirely referred His birth of the Virgm to His stupen- 18
dous condescension ', and to that dispensation’, which out of } συγκατά-
His unbounded mercy and love towards the human race He pues τὰς
endured to undergo. That this was the true and ancient μίαν.
faith of the Church is known by all that love truth and are
even slightly acquainted with primitive antiquity. See what
we have written in the Judgment of the Catholic Church,
y. 5, near the end iP. 90], and also § 9 of the same chapter
ΤΡ. 106].
13. But to lia from these triflers to the holy fathers,
Hegesippus and Irenzus, who are certainly two most full
witnesses of the primitive and apostolic tradition. As for
Hegesippus, he lived near the apostolic times, and wrote
a history of the Church from our Lord’s Passion to his own |
age. In preparing this history he no doubt consulted the
records, which were extant in great numbers in his day, of
the apostolic age and that immediately succeeding. He was
besides, as Jerome informs us, a follower of primitive piety, and
a man of holy simplicity and remarkable integrity, and there-
fore an historian very worthy of credit. Now this Hegesippus
testifies, that the doctrine which had been at first delivered by
Christ and His Apostles, remained unimpaired and inviolate
in all the Churches in his own time, (in which [time], how-
ever, it is clear that the doctrine of Christ, God and Man, [290]
was everywhere received throughout the Catholic. Church.)
The same statement is made by Ireneus, Hegesippus’s con-
temporary, who, in the judgment of Tertullian, was “ a most
curious investigator of all doctrines ;” and to whom, moreover,
the providence of God granted this peculiar assistance for
ascertaining the apostolic doctrine, that in his youth he had
associated with the blessed Polycarp, the disciple of the
Apostle John, and was thoroughly imbued with his doctrine,
and always kept it firmly fixed in his memory, as he himself
tells us in his Epistle to Florinus. He appeals to Polycarp
252 . Testimony of Ireneus to the faith of Polycarp.
PRIMITIVE as a witness for the ancient tradition above mentioned, “ of
TRADITION
or tux believing in one God, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of
all things which are therein, through Jesus Christ, the Son of
God; who out of His most eminent love to His own creation
endured the birth of the Virgin, Himself by Himself uniting
man to God.” Nay, he appeals to all the Churches of Asia,
and the bishops who succeeded Polycarp, as witnesses of the
same tradition. For thus he speaks in the afore-cited book
ii. 8°; “And Polycarp too [is a witness], who not only was
instructed by Apostles, and conversed: with many of those
who saw our Lord, but was also appointed by Apostles to be
a bishop in the Church at Smyrna in Asia, whom we also saw
in our early youth, (for he continued a very long time, and
when very old departed out of this life by most glorious and
noble martyrdom,) [Polycarp, I say, is.a witness], having.
always taught these things, which also he had learned from
the Apostles, which also the Church hands down, and
CATHOLIC
CHUROH.
[291] things.”
tis.
which alone are true. All the Churches in Asia, and they
who have succeeded Polycarp down to this time, attest these
Surely, men have airived at the highest pitch of
shamelessness, when they do not “blush to allege the gross
falsehood of the Artemonites, heretics of a later age, in oppo-
sition to these most credible witnesses.
Let us now proceed in examining what remains of Zwicker’s
* commen- fictions ᾽ν
᾿ [The original Greek i is as follows:
καὶ Πολύκαρπος δὲ οὔ μόνον ὑπὸ ἀπο-
στόλων μαθητευθεὶς καὶ συναναστραφεὶς
πολλοῖς Tos’ τὸν Χριστὸν ἑἕωρακόσιν,
ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων κατασταθεὶς
eis τὴν ᾿Ασίαν, ἐν τῇ ἐν Σμύρνῃ ἐκκλη-
σίᾳ, ἐπίσκοπος, ὃν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἑωράκαμεν
ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικία" (ἐπιπολὺ γὰρ
παρέμεινε, καὶ πανὺ γηραλέυς, ἐνδόξως
καὶ ἐπιφανέστατα μαρτυρήσας, ἐξῆλθε
τοῦ βίου.) ταῦτα διδάξας ἀεὶ, ἃ καὶ παρὰ
τῶν ἀποστύλων ἔμαθεν, ἃ uit ἡ ἐκκλη-
σία παραδίδωσιν, ἃ καὶ μόνα ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ,
—§ 4. p. 176.]
CHAPTER IV...’ 19
ON THE ORPHIC VERSES, AND (BY WAY OF DIGRESSION) ON THE SIBYLLINE ORACLES,
_ QUOTED IN OPPOSITION TO THE HEATHEN BY JUSTIN AND OTHER ANCIENT WRITERS,
1. LET us now, in the second "ahaa examine Zwicker’s
conjecture about the Orphic verses, which is more absurd" ΜΕΝ,
certainly than any poetical fiction. Respecting these verses
he writes thus*; “ These ravings, fictions, and extraordinary
notions of siege Magus, with the additional polishing’ of | ἢ expoli-
tione,
Cerinthus, of which more will soon be said, certainly seem, if
I am not greatly mistaken, to have been the first outlines
and elements of the verses of Orpheus, (a heathen, and,
according to Pausanias, a magician too,) which are quoted by
Justin Martyr in his Exhortation to the Greeks, and which
are to the following effect » ;—
‘ By the Father’s Word I adjure thee, which He uttered first
When He established the whole universe by His own counsels.”
These verses some impostor, who was a disciple of Simon
Magus, seems to have circulated first among the Christians
under the name of Orpheus, as one to whom in very ancient
times a great many writings of other authors were attributed,
according to Suidas, on account of the celebrity of his name,
as though they were his genuine works, that so they might
acquire greater authority. These also Justin afterward made
sacred in his own eyes and those of others, as having been
derived by Orpheus from the doctrines of Moses.” He adds [292]
presently ; “ That Justin, relying upon these verses of Orpheus,
together with others, put forth his view respecting the gene-
ration from the Father of Christ, as the Mind, Word, and
5 Tren. pp. 15, 16.
b [Αὐδὴν ὁρκίζω σε πατρὸς, ἣν φθέγξατο πρῶτον,
Ἡνίκα κόσμον ἅπαντα éais στηρίξατο βουλαῖς. '
; Cohort. ad Gentes, ὁ. 15. p. 19.]
254 The Orphic Verses known before the time of Simon.
prmitive Reason of the Father, (observe,) before the foundation of the
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHUROH.
[293]
world, in order that the world might be created by Him, and
that He might come down to men, and at last also become
man.” ‘The heretical writer rests upon these two supports, |
1. That these verses were forged by the Simonians under the
name of Orpheus; 2. That Justin, relying on these same
verses, put forth his view about the generation of the Word
before the foundation of the world.
2. With respect to the former point, it is a gratuitous
assertion of his own; nor can he produce even the slightest
argument for his opinion. Indeed, there are not wanting
very manifest reasons for the contrary. For, first, Justin
cites these verses as already well. known, and long before
received among the heathen, under the name of Orpheus ; so
that it is very unlikely that they were the forgery of a new
and obscure sect, almost unknown among the heathen.
Justin thus prefaces his quotation from these Orphic verses ° ;
* For I suppose it is not unknown to some of you, who have
no doubt read the histories of Diodorus and those of the rest
who have treated of these things, that Orpheus, and Homer,
and Solon who wrote laws for the Athenians, and Pythagoras,
and Plato, and some others, after having visited Egypt and
got assistance from the books of Moses, afterwards taught
the contrary to that which they had before erroneously
thought respecting the gods.”
8. In these words (if I mistake not) Justin intimates the
true origin of the Orphic verses, namely, that some writer of
considerable antiquity, who was acquainted with both the
Mosaic writings and the Jewish system, had long before
published those verses under the name of Orpheus, (for
I should not believe with Justin that Orpheus was himself
the author of them,) and that they were well known among
the heathen some centuries before the birth of Justin, as the
verses of the most famous poet Orpheus. I hold it, I say,
most probable that the Orphic verses proceeded from the .
. [οὐ γὰρ λανθάνειν ἐνίους ὑμῶν οἶμαι, Πλάτων καὶ ἄλλοι τινὲς, ἐν τῇ Αἰγύπτῳ
ἐντύχοντας πάντως που τῇ τε Arodwpov γενόμενοι καὶ ἐκ τῆς Μωῦσέως ἱστορίας
ἱστορίᾳ καὶ ταῖς τῶν λοιπῶν τῶν περὶ ὠφεληθέντες, ὕστερον ἐνάντια τῶν προτέ-
τούτων ἱστορησάντων, ὅτι καὶ ᾿Ορφεὺς᾽ ρων μὴ καλῶς περὶ θεῶν δοξάντων αὐτοῖς
καὶ ὍὍμηρος καὶ Σόλων, ὃ τοὺς νόμους dmepyvayro.|—Cohort. ad Greecos, p.
᾿Αθηναίοις γεγραφὼς, καὶ Ππυϑαγόρας καὶ 15. [8 14. p. 18.]
They were derived from Jewish sources. ἕφὈὄῦ
Jewish system’. For the man_who denies that heathen cuar. rv.
writers borrowed much from the writings of Moses and the ὃ
ς . 1 disci-
Hebrews, surely deserves to be censured as wanting either pjing,
in wisdom or modesty. This fact is abundantly testified -
by the undoubted writings of the heathen, which teach
things respecting the unity of God and the creation of the
world, which could scarcely, if at all, have been known or
learnt from any other source than the Church of God. Now
the Jewish religion then chiefly began to be known to the
heathen, when that people was first expelled from their
country, and scattered among the various nations of -the
world; and afterwards the divine oracles themselves, (by the
singular providence of God, preparing the way for the call
of the Gentiles,) were translated by the LXX. elders at
Alexandria, at king Ptolemy’s command, into Greek, the
‘common language of most nations. Who can wonder, then,
if from that time there should be found in the writings of
heathens, some things that are in agreement with the Jewish
system ?
4, But (you will ask) how can this be wisbliedes to the Orphic
verses, since in them there is mention made of the Λόγος or 20
Word, as that by which all things were created, which was
unknown even to the Jews themselves? I answer; That the —
Word of God was well known to the Jews, is abundantly
testified by the Chaldee Paraphrase, which gives the name
of 77%) or NW, that is, the Word, to that [Power] by
which God makes and orders’ all things; a subject on which ἢ esa
bit
many commentators have written fully. Among others see
- Hugo Grotius, in his note on John, chaps. i. and ii.; who
there goes so far as to conjecture, that the writer of the [294]
Orphic verses took his views concerning the Logos from the
Hebrews ; and that he was followed by Heraclitus, (in whose
works Amelius has observed that this term is found in the
same sense,) and Heraclitus by Plato and the Platonists.
This subject, however, has been exhausted by the very learned
Dr. Allix, in his treatise entitled, “ The Judgment of the
ancient Jewish Church, in opposition to the Unitarians.”
5. I will observe in passing, that I hold the opinion that
the Sibylline oracles also, which Justin-and others after
him alleged respecting Christ, in opposition to the heathen,
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[295]
256 The Sibylline Verses ; not at first corrupted by Christians.
might possibly have emanated from the same source. For I
cannot be induced to believe that-these prophecies were forged
by the fathers of the primitive Church, or were obtruded
on them by pious frauds, as some learned men confidently
assert ; thus rashly and immodestly casting, what our
countryman Montague? calls an insufferable reproach, on —
those holy bishops. For what do they produce in support
of so strange an assertion? Surely nothing but mere vain
surmises. Whilst, on the contrary, the reasons which make
for us are clear. For, in the first place, who can suppose that
Justin and other fathers (men of piety and wisdom) would
have dared to allege the spurious and supposititious verses of -
the Sibyls, in the presence of emperors, and before nations,
(to whom those oracles could not but have been very well
known,) in defence of their faith, appealing with the greatest
confidence even to the very copies which were preserved by
the pagans? Indeed Justin, near the end of his Exhortation,
appeals to the Sibylline oracles about Christ, as notorious to
all the world. These are his words®; “ Be convinced by the
most venerable and ancient Sibyl, whose books, as it happens,
are preserved throughout the world,’ &c. Ido not indeed
forget that the pagans once objected against the Christians,
that they had inserted much [of their own] into the Sibyl-
line verses; for Celsus pretended as much; as we learn
from Origen’s work against’ Celsus, vii. But yet I also
know Origen’s answer to Celsus in the same passage, to wit,
that he had not pointed out what those passages were which
the Christians inserted, which he unquestionably would have
done if he had had copies more ancient or more free from
corruption. And indeed if such a fraud on the part of the
Christians had been detected in the days of Celsus, Theo-
philus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, &c., would have been
the most foolish and barefaced of men, who did not blush
afterwards, to allege these same oracles in opposition to
the heathen. - ὶ
6. Besides, we find some passages in heathen writers, who
lived either before the birth of Christ, or at the very time at
- ἃ Appar. iii. p. 41. τῇ οἰκουμένῃ σώζεσθαι συμβαίνει, K.T.A.
© πείσθητε τῇ ἀρχαιοτάτῃ καὶ σφόδρα 1s 38. p. 35. |
παλαιᾷ Σιβύλλῃ, hs τὰς βίβλους ἐν πάσῃ Ρ, 869. [88 58, 56, pp. 782, 784.7}
The Sibylline predictions of Christ quoted by heathen writers. 257
which our Lord was living upon earth, that are taken from
those Sibylline books, which exactly correspond with what
the Fathers quote from the same writings. Justin Martyr
(Apol. 11.2) quotes the Sibyls as predicting the conflagration
of the world in these words; ‘‘ The Sibyl and Hystaspis said,
that there would be a dissolution of all corruptible things by
fire.” Ovid had taught (Metam. i. 256") the same out of
the prophetic books ;—
“ He remembers too that it is fated that a time-shall come,
When sea, and earth, and the dome of heaven being seized by fire
Shall burn, and the whole mass of the universe shall be consumed.”
The early Christians brought forward many passages out of the
Sibylline oracles concerning their King Messiah, who was to
bring peace and salvation to the whole world. But Cicero,
(On Divination, book ii.) says, that in favour of Julius Cesar,
(who was really, though not in name, then king,) the follow-
ing sentence was produced by an interpreter of the Sibylline
books; “If we would be saved, we must have a king ;”—
a prophecy, which even Molinzus' (though otherwise not very
favourable to the oracles of the Sibyls) declares that he thinks
pointed to Christ and His kingdom, whereby salvation has
been procured for all who are obedient to his sway; as Gro-
‘tius also thought, on Matthew ii. 1.
7. The clearest passages, however, are those which Virgil,
in his fourth Eclogue, takes from the Cumzean verses, con-
cerning the Boy, who should descend from heaven, be born
of a Virgin, rule over the whole world, blot: out the sins of
mankind, and slay the serpent, and bring back the golden
age ;—all which the poet, gathering from the circumstances
of the time that the period designated by the Sibyl had
arrived, yet not catching the true sense of these prophecies,
applied with shameful flattery (or, if you will, with poetic
licence) to Saloninus the son of Pollio, who. was then just
born. Respecting these, again, Molinzus professesi, that,
after an attentive persual, he had often been carried away in
amazement, how it should have happened, that the verses
.SipvddAa δὲ καὶ Ὑστάσπις γενήσε- Quo mare, quo tellus, correptaque
σθαι τῶν φθαρτῶν ἀνάλωσιν διὰ πυρὸς regia ceeli
épacav.—t[ Apol. i. 20. p. 55.) Ardeat, et mundi moles operosa
h Esse quoque in fatis reminiscitur __ laboret.
affore tempus, 1 Vates, iii. 14. Ὁ Ubi supra.
BULL.—J. 0.°0. s
CHAP. IV.
[296]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
5]
[997]
258 Molineus on the 4th Eclogue of Virgil; these predictions
of this Eclogue applied so exactly to the birth and kingdom.
of Christ; which Virgil professes to have derived from the
verses of the Sibyl. Molinzus adds, that greater weight
attaches to these verses, inasmuch as they were written by
Virgil at Rome (where the Sibylline books were kept in the
Palatine library) at the very time when Christ was born in.
Judea. It will be worth our while to transcribe here the
verses of Virgil, as Molinzus has illustrated them by his com-
ment; “ The poet therefore, raising his song above the style
of an Relobus; thus begins ἢ :—
“¢ Sicilian Muse, begin a loftier strain !’
“ He then adds! :—
“4 And now the last period predicted in Cumszean verse has come ;
The great cycle of the ages is beginning its course anew. Ἵ
Now the Maiden is returning, the reign of Saturn is returning,
And a new progeny is being sent down from the high heaven.
Do but thou, chaste Lucina, smile upon the Boy now being born,
Under whom the iron race shall first come to an end,
And they of the golden age shall spring up over the whole world.’
“ Surely this is wonderful; the Maiden, the birth of the
Boy, the descent from heaven, the golden age under him,
and all taken from the Sibylline verses, and that at the very.
time at which Christ was being born. He afterwards ad-_
dresses the Boy in these words ™;—
“¢ Under Thy guidance, if any traces of our sin remain,
They shall be put away, and shall free the earth from continued dread.’
“δ predicts that our sins would be blotted out by this
Boy. Alas! how different is this from the usual strain of
poets! but he also JE aie the destruction of the serpent
under the reign of this Boy”;
«<The serpent shall perish; and the deceiving poisonous bat
Shall die, and the balsam of Assyria shall everywhere spring up.’
Sicelides Musee paulo majora
canamus.—[ Virg. Ecl. iv. 1.]
Ultima Cumeei venit jam car-
minis eetas,
Magnus ab integro seclorum
nascitur ordo.
Jam redit et Virgo, redeunt
Saturnia regna.
Jam nova progenies coelo de-
mittitur alto.
Tu modo nascenti puero, quo
ferrea primum
‘Desinet, ac toto surget gens
aurea mundo,
Casta fave Lucina ——.
Te duce, si qua manent sceleris
vestigia nostri,
Irrita perpetua solvent formi-
dine terras.— [[bid. 13.]
Occidet et serpens, et fallax
herba veneni
Occidet, Assyrium vulgo nasce-
tur amomum.—(Ibid. 24.]
(Ibid:
probably derived from the Jews: Tacitus and Suetonius. 259
* And a little after ° ;—
« ¢ ___ and with the virtues of his Father shall he rule
The world in peace.’
“ By the fallax herba veneni, ‘ the deceiving poisonous herb,’
understand false doctrines and the worship of idols; and by
_ the Assyrium amomum, ‘the balsam of Assyria,’ which was
everywhere to spring up, the doctrine of the Gospel, which was
to be carried round the world. For no doubt in the Sibylline
verses it was the Syrium amomum which was everywhere to
grow; Judea being in Syria, from which the preaching of the
Gospel first came forth; but Virgil put Assyrium instead of
Syrium, making this easy alteration for the sake of the metre.”
8. You will ask, whence the heathen obtained these so clear
oracles concerning Christ? I reply, from the Jews, espe-
cially those of the dispersion, who, on every occasion which
was given or taken, used boastingly to publish the most magni-
ficent descriptions of their King Messiah out of the oracles of
their prophets ; for from the time when the Jews were driven |
into exile, the promises and predictions of the prophets con-
cerning the Messiah and the coming age were understood by
the whole people of God’ more clearly than they had ever been
before; God’s gracious providence so ordering it, that His
people in their deepest afflictions, and when groaning under a
foreign rule, might be raised up by the hope of those promises.
Abundant evidence of this occurs in the writings of those He-
brews who lived in the interval between the Babylonian cap-
tivity and the coming of our Lord. If, however, any one doubt
whether the fame and knowledge of these oracles reached the
heathen, let him consider but that one remarkable prophecy
only, which both Cornelius Tacitus and Suetonius mention as
having before the coming of Christ spread throughout the whole
world,—that out of Judea should arise one who should have
[universal] empire’. “The persuasion prevailed among many,”
says Tacitus ?, Hist. v. 13, “that there was contained in the
ancient writings of the priests [a prophecy], that at that very
time the East should grow strong, and that there should
come from Judea those who should have [universal] empire.”
ο Pacatumque reget patriis virtuti- sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso
bus orbem.—{ Ibid. 17.] tempore fore ut valesceret oriens, pro-
P Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis feectique Judea rerum potirentur.
$s 2
[298]
rerum,
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHUROH.
[299]
1 basi.
260 The history of the Sibylline books ; they were finally
While Suetonius, in his Vespasian, chap. 4, says?; ‘ There
had spread all through the East an ancient and uniform
opinion, that the fates had decreed ‘that at that time should
come from Judea those that should have [ universal | empire.”
9. If you ask again, in what way these Jewish oracles
could have crept into the Sibylline books, which were kept
in the Capito] at Rome? the answer is obvious; The books,
which they called Sibylline, were of two kinds; some bought
by Tarquin and preserved in the Capitol down to the days of
Sylla, when the Capitol was destroyed by fire, and these books
burnt; these must have proceeded from the devil, since it is
plain from Livy, that in them were prescribed many impious
and idolatrous superstitions. But besides these, others also
had been brought from Erythre by the three ambassadors,
(whom the Roman senate entrusted with that business after the
restoration of the Capitol,) and had been subsequently laid up .
at Rome in the Capitol. These verses, Lactantius informs us,
i. 6, 12, amounted to a thousand in number. But Cornelius
Tacitus states also, that persons had been sent by Octavius -
Augustus into: different parts in quest of others. In his
Annals, vi. 12, he says’; ‘‘ When the verses of the Sibyl had
been collected in Samos, Ilion, Erythrz, and also throughout
Africa, Sicily, and the Italian colonies, the duty was assigned
to the priests of distinguishing, so far as human means enabled
them, which of them were genuine.” And Suetonius, in his
Augustus, chap. 31, tells us*; “ Whatever prophetic books
in Greek and Latin were in common circulation, whose
authors were unknown or of no authority, he collected from
every quarter, to the number of above two thousand, and
burnt them, retaining only the Sibylline; and these only
after a careful selection had been made; and laid them up in
two golden cases beneath the pedestal! of the Palatine Apollo.”
Of this collection too Dionysius of Halicarnassus, iv., writes .
4 Percrebrerat oriente toto vetus et
constans opinio, esse in fatis, ut eo
tempore Judzea profecti rerum poti-
rentur.
τ Quesitis Samo, Ilio, Erythris, per
Africam etiam ac Siciliam et Italicas
colonias carminibus Sibyllee, .. datum
sacerdotibus negotium, quantum. hu-
mana ope potuissent, vera discernere.
® Quicquid fatidicorum librorum
Greeci Latinique generis nullis vel
parum idoneis auctoribus vulgo fere-
batur, supra duo millia contracta un-
diq 1e cremavit, ac solos retinuit Sibyl-
linos; hos quoque delectu habito;
condiditque duobus forulis auratis sub
Palatini Apollinis basi.
collected from various quarters in the reign of Augustus. 261
as follows’; “‘ But those which are now extant,” (meaning omar. tv:
the Sibylline oracles,) “are such as have been collected from Sex
different places; some brought from the cities of Italy,
others from Erythre in Asia, and others again from different
cities, copies of some being even derived from private indi-_
viduals.”” Now in this search after Sibylline prophecies, who
does not see at once that many foreign, and those too Jewish, 22
prophecies might easily have been regarded as Sibylline
verses (all the more remarkable oracles, as these especially
were, commonly bearing that celebrated name), and with the
rest might have been removed to Rome? since it was quite
impossible for the Roman priests, in so great an abundance
.of prophetic books, to determine for certain which were [900]
genuine and which were not. For what sure criterion could
those priests have had for distinguishing the real verses of
the Sibyl from those which were false and spurious? Was
that ancient original *, which had been burnt.along with the ! airoypa-
Capitol, so familiar to them that they were able, when they sith
saw a copy, easily to recollect what portion of it agreed with
the original, and what did not? Surely not! For (besides the
fact, that the Sibyiline prophecies were consulted but seldom,
and only on extraordinary occasions), the original of the Sibyl-
line verses was lost A.U.c. 671, that is, B.c. 81. Whereas the
selection above mentioned was made at Rome A.U.c. 741, that
is, B.C. 11, when Augustus himself held the office of Pontifex
Maximus; so that between this selection and the time when
the original of the Sibylline verses was destroyed with the
Capitol, there was an interval of seventy clear years. Or lastly,
when the book of the Sibylline verses was burnt with the
Capitol, did any other copies ἢ survive at Rome, as Baronius ® ? alia anti-
thinks? That is extremely improbable; for,as Molineus rightly &"*?2™
observes, if these verses. had survived the destruction of the
Capitol, the Senate would not have despatched ambassadors
through Greece in quest of Sibylline verses, to repair this loss.
What rule then had those priests left, whereby to distinguish
the genuine Sibyllie verses from the spurious? Certainly
none. Hence the cautious remark of Tacitus in the passage
* οἱ δὲ νῦν ὄντες ἐκ πολλῶν εἰσι σύμ. καὶ wap’ ἀνδρῶν ἰδιωτῶν wetuypadertes.
φοροι τῶν τύπων [οἱ μὲν ἐκ τῶν ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ [ς. 62.]
πολέων κομισθέντες" οἱ δὲ ἐξ ᾿Ερυθρῶν « Apparat. ad Ann. ἃ 2.
τῶν ἐν ᾿Ασίᾳ, .. of δὲ ἐξ ἄλλων πόλεων, :
262 Sibylline prosiaiies evidently derived μά from the Jews.
prrurmve we have quoted from him; “so far as ‘anne means enabled
TRADITION
OF THE them.”
carnouie 10, Thus the origin of the Sideline oracles, as they are
peo called, concerning Christ, seems to me to be plain enough,
namely, that they came from the Jews. And so Gregory
Nazianzen of old judged correctly, who in his poem to Neme-
sius says, that Trismegistus and the Sibyl did not utter under
divine inspiration all that they prophesied concerning God,
[301] but took it from the sacred books of the Hebrews, which they
‘ obiter had happened to read’;
perlege-
rant. ον “Not from God, wh having looked at my books ’.”
Here his only mistake is, that he thought that those oracles
were compiled by the Sibyls themselves. So also before him
Clement of Alexandria calls the Sibyl, “the prophetess of
the Hebrews,” in his Admonition to the Gentiles, pp. 46, 47 *.
See also the note of Grotius on Matt. ii.1. And indeed in
those verses themselves there are not a few passages which
exhibit no obscure indications of this their origin. Such is
that which is quoted by Lactantius in praise of the Jewish
nation, in iv. 20¥:—
“ Godlike race of happy heaven-born Jews.’
ἀμ again 5,----
«Βα when Rome shall be lord also of Egypt,
eis ἐν δη- : Continuing long united in one 2, then shall the supreme kingdom
θίνουσα. Of the King immortal over men appear.”
These words simply contain a clear exposition of the pro-
phecy of Daniel respecting the empire which God should
give to Messiah, after the posterity of Seleucus and Lagus
ceased to reign. Of the same kind is that which is said of
the elevation of the Holy City, namely Jerusalem, to be the
metropolis of the entire world ὃ ;— _
* And the city which God made, He snails it
Brighter than the stars, and the sun, and the moon.”
Moreover, the compiler of the Sibylline verses alniost
everywhere speaks the sentiments of the Jews concerning
2
Y οὐ θεόθεν, βίβλων δὲ παραβλεψάν- εἰς ἕν δηθύνουσα, τότε βασίλεια
τες ἐμεῖο. μεγίστη
* τῆς. προφήτιδος τῆς Ἑ βραίων. [p. ἀθανάτου. βασιλῆος ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώποισι
61.} φανεῖται.
y ᾿Ιουδαίων μακάρων θεῖον γένος οὐρα- * καὶ πόλιν, ἣν ἐποίησε Θεὺς, αὐτὴν
γιώνων. ἐποίησε
*-qurap ἐπεὶ Ρώμη καὶ Αἰγύπτου λαμπρότεραν ἄστρων, καὶ ἡλίου, ἠδὲ
βασιλεύσει, oeAnvns.—Lactant. vii. 24.
Instances from the citations in Lactantius. 263
Messiah’s kingdom. Of the universal peace which was to onap. rv.
come to pass in the days of the Messiah, he writes thus » ;— Bess «ll
. And the wolves contend in sport! with lambs upon the mountains ; [3502]
For the lynxes eat grass together with the kids, 1 ἁμιλλοῦν-
Bears with calves and with all human beings together ; ται,
The carnivorous animals shall eat grass at the mangers ;
And dragons shall sleep with motherless infants.”
Compare Isaiah xi. 6, 7, and Ixv. 25. In another passage
respecting the fertility of nature ὃ ;—
“ And then shall God give great joy to men;
For earth and trees, and earth’s countless nurslings,
Shall yield the true fruit to mankind
Of wine and sweet honey, and white milk
And bread, which to mortals is the best [gift] of all.”
And again, in like manner ¢ ;—
“And the sacred land of the godly alone shall yield all this :
Streams of honey from the rock and from the fountain,
And the milk of ambrosia shall flow for all the righteous.”
Here is to be especially observed, [what is said] of the
especial privilege of the Holy Land, ἐ. 6. of Judea. In almost
the,same words does the prince of poets, from the Cumzan
verses, describe the golden age of his King, who should be
born, in the Eclogue which we have just quoted.
11. Now all that I have said I would have to be understood
in the first place of the Sibylline oracles adduced by Justin, _
Clement, Theophilus, and the more ancient fathers; meanwhile 23
I do not deny, that by the Christians of later times some in-
terpolations were made in the Sibylline books.. Among this
class must be placed that acrostic, which Constantine (or as
some say Eusebius) mentioned in his Oration to the Saints,
‘chap. 18, where the first letters of the verses form these words,
of δὲ λύκοι σὺν ἄρνεσ᾽ ἐν οὔρεσιν θρέμματα γαίης
ὁμιλλοῦνται"
χόρτον γὰρ λύγκες τ᾽ ἐρίφοισιν ἅμα
βόσκονται,
ἄρκτοι σὺν μόσχοισιν ὁμοῦ καὶ
πᾶσι βροτοῖσι"
σαρκοβύρος τε λέων φάγετ᾽ ἄχυρον
“παρὰ φάτναι5.
σὺν βρέφεσίν τε δράκοντες ἀμάτορ-
σι κοιμήσονται.---[Ἰ0ϊὰ.}
© καὶ τότε δὴ χάρμην μεγάλην Θεὸς
ἀνδράσι δώσει"
καὶ γὰρ γῆ καὶ δένδρα, καὶ ἄσπετα
δώσουσιν καρπὸν τὸν ἀληθινὸν ἀν-
θρώποισι
οἴνου καὶ μέλιτος γλυκεροῦ, λευκοῦ
τε γάλακτος
καὶ σίτου, ὕπερ ἐστὶ βροτοῖς κάλ-
λιστον ἁπάντων.-- (Ibid. ]
εὐσεβέων δὲ μόνων ἁγία χθὼν πάν-
τα τάδ᾽ οἴσει
νᾶμα μέλιτος ἀπὸ πέτρης 75° ἀπὸ
πηγῆς,
καὶ γάλατ᾽ ἀμβροσίης ῥεύσει πάν-
τέσσι δικαίοις.---ΤὈ1α.
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
OATHOLIO
CHURCH.
[808]
264 Interpolated by Christians before the fourth century.
Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, Θεοῦ Tids, Σωτὴρ, Σταυρός---ἰ Jesus Christ,
Son of God, Saviour, Cross :] of which certainly neither Justin,
nor Theophilus, nor Clement of Alexandria has anywhere
made mention; although Cicero also (On Divination, 11.)
speaks of a certain acrostic of the Sibyl; but he nowhere
tells us what was contained in it. Without doubt those
Sibylline oracles are also spurious, in which some actions of
Christ are narrated with such clearness and exact statement
of every circumstance, that one would suppose they contained
history rather than prophecy. Of this kind is that about the
miracle of the loaves, quoted by Lactantius, iv. 15° ;—
“ With five loaves in all and with two fishes
Shall Ile satisfy five thousand men in the wilderness.
And having taken afterward all the fragments that remain,
He shall fill twelve baskets for the hope of many.”
Who can suppose that these lines and others like them,
which are found in Lactantius, are not taken from the history
of the Gospel? It is certain nothing-of this kind is to be
found quoted by Justin, Theophilus, and Clement from the
_ Sibylline oracles; and as they were most studious readers of
the Sibylline verses, and on other occasions seized every oppor-
tunity of assailing the pagan religion with its own weapons,
they would never have passed over these so plain prophecies
about Christ, if they had met with them in the Sibylline books
that were received in their time. But Lactantius, who wrote ~
about the beginning of the fourth century, after Constantine
had professed himself a Christian, was the first to produce
these verses under the name of the Sibyls in opposition to
the heathen. |
12. The following then is the result of this discussion.
In the first place, it is certain that there were extant among
the heathen, before the birth of Christ, some prophecies held
to be Sibylline, wherein were set forth the worship of one God
and what pertained to the Messiah’s future kingdom; and
to which accordingly Justin and other primitive Christians
rightly and most justly appealed in their controversies against
the heathen. In the second place, it is most probable that
© εἰν ἄρτοις ἅμα πέντε καὶ ἰχθύεσσι καὶ τὰ περισσεύοντα λαβὼν μετὰ
δυοῖσιν κλάσματα πάντα,
~ Ul : 4, ,
ἀνδρῶν χιλισξαὶ ἐν ἐρήμῳ πέντε δώδεκα πληρώσει κοφίνους εἰς ἐλ-
κορέσσει" πίδα πολλῶν.
The Orphic verses not invented by followers of Simon Magus. 265
those oracles did not, as was thought, come from the Sibyls
themselves, who were heathen women; but from wise men,
who flourished among the people of God (I mean the Jews)
after the Babylonian captivity ; and there is no reason why we
should be surprised that these men more fully and plainly
laid open’ the obscurer declarations of the prophets; espe-
cially if the divine plan be more deeply considered, by which
_it was brought about that, as the times of the Gospel ap-
proached, the evangelical promises and predictions should
more clearly shine forth; God no doubt intending that before
the Sun which was to arise, there should be, as it were, a
kind of dawn. Lastly, it is but too plain, that some things
were afterwards added to these oracles to give them a clearer
explanation ; while others again were invented and put
together by some idle men who were professed Christians.
This, as Molinzus rightly judged, the old Serpent seems to
have effected with the design, that by there being much that
was false intermingled with the true, doubt might be thrown
even upon the true. This much have I said by the way,
about the Sibylline oracles, and I hope it will not be unac-
ceptable to the reader. I now return to the Orphic verses
and Zwicker. © aden
13. And one argument 1 shall now at last produce, which
will put it beyond all controversy, that the Orphic verses
which Justin cited (whatever might have been their origin‘),
certainly could not have been the invention of any Simonian.
It is this; that they contain such statements, concerning God
and the creation of the world, as are utterly at variance with
the Simonian heresy. For every one knows, who has ever
had even the slightest acquaintance with Ireneus, Tertullian,
and other fathers, who have written about the Simonians, that
those heretics taught that the visible world was not created
by God Himself, nor through’? His Word, but by inferior
powers. The author of the Orphic verses, on the contrary,
everywhere affirms that this visible world is the work of the
Supreme God Himself, and that it was created through the
Word, as may be seen from that long passage of the Orphic
‘[Tatian, the disciple of Justin,says critus the Athenian, who was contem-
that the verses which are attributed porary with Pisistratus. 41. p. 275. B.]
to Orpheus were composed by Onoma-
CHAP. Iv.
§ 11—13..
[304]
1 enucle-
asse.
2 did.
[305]
266 Justin did not derive the doctrine of the Word from these
proorive verses which is cited by Justin’. Those verses too which
“or mun Zwicker quotes in part, and which follow soon after in the
pg same place of Justin, contain this same doctrine. They are
as follow ® ;—
cd | wijene thee by heaven, the work of God great and wise ;
I adjure thee by the Father’s Word, which He uttered at the first,
When He established the whole world by His own counsels.”
I should therefore suppose that anybody, rather than a
disciple of Simon, was the author of these verses. And now -
of Zwicker’s conjecture (or rather his wild dream) that the.
Orphic verses were a forgery of the Simonians, more than
enough has been said.
24 14, It is followed by another invention of his, not less
(nay much more) absurd, and utterly void of all semblance
of truth; to the effect that it was in reliance on these Orphic
verses that Justin propounded his notion of the generation of
the Word before the foundation of the world. For, who that
‘ prorsus had not lost his understanding’ entirely, could even suspect
ney that a man of sanctity and discretion could have built his
belief and opinion respecting a primary article of Christianity
on the verses of a heathen, nay more (as Zwicker observes),
of a magician; or have been willing to depart from the rule
of apostolic doctrine (which prevailed everywhere in the
Church before him), under the influence of an argument so
slight, nay so utterly nought? Besides, Justin never for-
mally quotes these Orphic verses for the purpose of establish-
[306] ing his opinion respecting the divine generation of. Christ.
It is only twice (if I remember rightly) that he cites the
Orphic verses, namely, in his Exhortation to the Gentiles‘,
and in his treatise On the Divine Monarchy*; and in both
passages he is simply engaged in defending the unity of
God against the polytheism of the heathen. In the former
passage, indeed, he incidentally, and as it were by the way,
. mentions and comments on these Orphic statements about
* ne ait the Father’s Word and Voice; without the slightest hint?
tamen ullo
innuens, that he had learnt the generation of the Word from ΟΥΒΒΈΘΟ, ;
s Exhortation to the aeaks, pp- ξατο πρῶτον
, 16, 16. [ΡΡ. 18,-19.] . ἡνίκα κόσμον ἅπαντα éats ornpi-
h οὐρανὸν. ὁρκίξω σε Θεοῦ μεγάλου taro BovAats.—[Ibid.]
σοφοῦ ἔργον, i (15. p. 18.]
αὐδὴν ὁρκίζω σε Πατρὸς, τὴν φθέγ- k (2, p. 37.]
verses; says it was taken into them from the Old Test. 967
on the contrary, he expressly affirms, that that writer had
borrowed his own statements about the Word, from the sacred
oracles of the Old Testament. What Justin says is this!;
** He. here gives the name ‘ Voice’ to the Word of God, by
whom the heaven and the earth and all the creation was
made, as we” (observe the word) “ are taught by the sacred
prophecies of holy men, which he also partially becoming
acquainted with in Egypt, knew that all the creation was
made by the Word of God.” The reader of these words of
Justin will (I doubt not) wonder with what face Zwicker
could have said ™, that Justin “‘ accommodated, as did nearly
all his successors, his opinion concerning Christ to the Orphic
verses, as to a sort of divine foundation, and confirmed it by
them.” But why do I loiter over trifles and follies so pal-
pable? For certain it is, that merely to state this conjecture
of Zwicker’s is, with all men of sense, to refute it.
1 αὐδὴν ἐνταῦθα τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ dvoud- προσχὼν ἔγνω ὅτι τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ
ζει «λόγον, 5¢ οὗ οὐρανὸς, καὶ γῆ, καὶ ἣ πᾶσα ἐγένετο ἡ xticis.—[Cohort. ad
πᾶσα ἐγένετο κτίσις, ὧς διδάσκουσιν judas Gent. ὃ 15. p. 18.]
αἱ θεῖαι τῶν ἁγίων ἀνδρῶν προφητεῖαι, ™ Tren. p. 31.
ais ἐν μέρει καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τῇ Αἰγύπτῳ .
Φ
\
OHAP. IV.
§ 13, 14.
[807]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
[308]
CHAPTER V.
THAT JUSTIN DID NOT LEARN WHAT HE HAS ADVANCED ABOUT THE WORD,
IN THE SCHOOL OF, PLATO.
1. Havina considered, and on the best possible ground
rejected, those primary causes, which, as Zwicker surmises,
led Justin to ascribe a divine nature to Jésus Christ; it
remains that we should now also bring under review those
secondary causes, of Zwicker’s own invention, that set forward
Justin in what he is pleased to call his error. And 1 cannot
doubt, but that, having so routed the main body of arguments,
which the heretic drew up-in array against divine truth, we
shall obtain an easy victory over his subsidiary forces. Of
these secondary causes he enumerates four*; namely, [1.]
“The love of the Platonic philosophy. [2.] The memory of
Gentilism not yet wholly obliterated. [3.] The custom of
placing excellent men in the number of the gods. [4.] Lastly,
the scruple and dread of worshipping one, who was a mere
man.”
2. Before, however, we examine these causes, the inventions
of an infelicitous mind, singly and in their several order, I can- .
not refrain from making (for my reader’s sake) this general
observation ; that, although Zwicker boasts that he has settled
the business, and that the origin of the opinion touching this
new production of Christ is manifestly laid open, he is yet
really in doubt and absolutely uncertain, by what means, if
not from the Scriptures and the teaching of the Apostles, the
doctrine of the Divinity of the Son could have been intro-
duced into the Christian Churches. For if he could have
been certain about some one cause, to which the origin of
this doctrine could be ascribed, why did he excogitate causes,
* [Pp. 16, 17.]
Further causes of Justin’s belief alleged by Zwicker. 269
so various, and, as will afterwards appear, so absolutely
contradictory to one another? For in the first place he
endeavours to shew, that the doctrine of the Catholic Church
respecting the-divine nature of the Son arose from the Simo-
nian heresy; and in this stronghold (though but a castle in
the air, and, as we have scen, most easily demolished) he evi-
dently placed the main defence of his heresy. But not feeling
himself secure even here, he sought out for hiniself another
hiding place in the fiction, that certain verses, under the
name of Orpheus, had been forged by the Simonians, which
led Justin, and the whole Church after him, into the error, as
he deems it, of the Divinity of the Son. But what could-he
more silly than such a story? Accordingly, distrusting this
stronghold also, he calls in to the aid of his desperate cause
a quaternion of other causes. And now he thinks he is
enjoying a brilliant triumph over vanquished truth, vaunting
that the question is quite settled, and that the origin of the
doctrine respecting the new production of Christ, and so the
new Christ, is manifest. But even yet he is not so secure
as he wished to appear; and therefore, after enumerating
all the said causes, he kept an &c. in reserve for himself;
so that, if they also should fail, he might either devise others
himself according to his fancy, or at least suggest to his
reader some handle for invention. The fact is, Zwicker had
determined to reject the doctrine of the divine nature of
the Son, as absurd, and as (what he is always proclaiming,
but nowhere proves) repugnant to sound reason. With the
view, therefore, of subserving this hypothesis of his, he pre-
ferred attributing the origin of that doctrine to any cause
whatever, to allowing (what the evident state of the case
most plainly demonstrates) that in the primitive Churches
throughout the world, it had been delivered and promulged,
as a part of the apostolical preaching, along with the Gospel
itself. But we will now examine these subsidiary causes one
by one.
3. Of the causes, which, it is pretended, moved Justin and
others who followed him to embrace the opinion of ‘Christ’s
divinity, the first in order (according to Zwicker) is “ the
knowledge and love of the Platonic philosophy.” The heretic
no doubt meant to insinuate, that Justin, who had previously
[309]
270 Platonism alleged as a cause of Justin’s believing as he did.
prmittve been a disciple of the Platonic philosophy, was, even after his
var tue receiving the faith of Christ, too fond of the principles of
carnoric his old master, and transferred into Christian teaching what
aa. he had read in Plato concerning the Logos, and so adulte-
rated what had been before the simple and pure Gospel
with a mixture of heathen philosophy. ‘This is at this day
the uniform statement and repeated cry of our Unitarians ;
“ Platonism, Platonism,” say they, “ first corrupted the pure’
tradition of the Apostles.” I, however, for my part, am
certain, that Zwicker and others, who cherish in their breast
so disparaging an opinion of that most excellent and incom-
parable man, (whom Photius” has deservedly honoured with
this most distinguished eulogy, that he was “a man, neither
in time nor in goodness far removed from the Apostles,”) _
are either perfect strangers to his writings, or wish to deal with
the venerable father in’a way that is contrary to all the rules,
not only of charity, but of justice. For how often, how openly,
with what earnest zeal and affection, does this very Justin,
(whom the heretic in these unworthy ways calumniates,)
confess, that, after he knew Christ, he utterly renounced the
philosophy, not only of Plato, but of every other sect, and
reverenced the most sacred oracles of Scripture only! Read
his incomparable Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; in it (not
far from the beginning) he acknowledges that, while he was —
yet ignorant of Christ, he was an admirer of the Platonic
philosophy especially ; but in the same passage he also sharply
censures’ that his former folly.. These are his words*; ‘‘ While
I was in uncertainty, I thought good to converse with the
Platonists; for their reputation too was great; and accord-
ingly I spent my time chiefly with-an intelligent man, who
had lately come to live in our city, and was eminent among
προέκοπ- the Platonists ; and I made progress ’, and advanced very much
ὁρᾷ every day. What pleased me especially was the understand-
ing of incorporeal things; and the contemplation of ideas
elevated my thought; and within a short time I began to
[310]
1 taxat.
Ὁ ἀνὴρ οὔτε τῷ χρόνῳ πόρρω τῶν dmo-
στόλων, οὔτε τῇ 4perH.—Biblioth. Cod.
234.
© ἐν ἀμηχανίᾳ δέ μου ὄντος, ἔδοξέ μοι
καὶ τοῖς Πλατωνικοῖς ἐντυχεῖν" πολὺ γὰρ
καὶ τούτων ἣν κλέος. καὶ δὴ νεωστὶ ἐπι-
δημήσαντι τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ πόλει συνετῷ
ἀνδρὶ, καὶ προὔχοντι ἐν τοῖς Πλατωνι-
κοῖς, συνδιέτριβον ὡς τὰ μάλιστα, καὶ
προέκοπτον, καὶ πλεῖστον ὕσον ἑκάστης
ἡμέρας ἐπεδίδουν. καί με ἥρει σφόδρα
ἡ τῶν ἀσωμάτων νόησις, καὶ ἡ θεωρία
τῶν ἰδεῶν ἀνεπτέρου μοι τὴν φρόνησιν,
» ,ὔ 4 v
ὀλίγου τε ἐντὸς xpivov ᾧμην σοφὸς
Justin’s own words respecting the Platonic philosophy. 271.
think I had become a wise man; and in my stupidity’ I
expected I should soon see God.” Afterwards, in the same
Dialogue, he sets forth the reasons by which he was led from
the Platonic to the Christian philosophy, in the course of
(what I believe to be) an imaginary conversation, in which
he introduces an aged’? man of venerable aspect talking with
him, while he was wandering alone. On his bringing forward’*
Plato and Pythagoras, and other philosophers, in opposition
to the truth, the old man says this to him among other
things4; “I care not for Plato, nor for Pythagoras, nor in
short * for any one at all who entertains such opinions: for ‘
the truth stands thus.” Then on Justin’s inquiring °, “ But
whom besides can one have as a teacher, or whence gain
assistance, if the truth is not even with these?” The old
man answers‘; “There lived long ago, men more ancient
than any of these reputed philosophers, happy, and good, and
‘pious, that spake by a divine Spirit, and foretold. things to
come, such as are now exactly happening: (they call them
᾿ prophets:) these alone both saw the truth, and proclaimed
it to mankind,” &c. The venerable old man says a good deal
more in the same passage that is well worth reading; but
what Justin’s own feelings were at the end of the conversa-
tion; he tells us himself ε; “ A fire was immediately kindled
in my soul, and I became possessed with a love of the pro-
phets and of those men that are friends of Christ. And on
CHAP. V.
§ 3.
1 ὑπὸ BAa-
Kelas.
2 vetulum.
3 obtru-
enti.
ἁπλῶς.
[311]
26
discoursing over his words with myself, I found this alone >
to be safe and useful philosophy; in this way then, and by
these means, am 1 a philosopher.”’ So that the love of Plato’s
philosophy, with which Justin was inflamed before, was
extinguished in him upon his discovery of the heavenly
doctrine, and a new and ardent love for the sacred Scriptures
γεγονέναι, καὶ ὑπὸ βλακείας HAmiCov
αὐτίκα κατόψεσθαι τὸν Oedv.—p. 219.
[§ 3. p. 108
a οὐδὲν ἐμοὶ μέλει Πλάτωνος, οὐδὲ
Πυθαγόρου, οὐδὲ ἁπλῶς οὐδενὸς ὅλως
καὶ θεοφιλεῖς, θείῳ πνεύματι λαλήσαντες,
καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα θεσπίσαντες, ἃ δὴ νῦν
γίνέται' (προφήτας δὲ αὐτοὺς καλοῦσιν")
οὗτοι μόνοι τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἐξ-
εἶπον ἀνθρώποις, κιλ.---ἰἰὈϊ1ὰ.}
τοιαῦτα δοξαάζοντος" τὸ γὰρ ἀληθὲς οὕτως
éxet.—p. 224. [8 6. p. 108.)
© rivt οὖν ἔτι τις χρήσαιτο διδασκάλῳ,
ἢ πόθεν ὠφεληθείη My εἰ μηδὲ ἐν τούτοις
τὸ ἀληθὲς ἔστιν.---ἰ ὃ 7. p. 109. ]
ἐγένοντό τινες πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου
πάντων τούτων τῶν νομιζομένων φιλο-
σόφων παλαιότεροι, μακάριοι, καὶ δίκαιοι,
& ἐμοῦ δὲ παραχρῆμα πῦρ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ
ἀνήφθη, καὶ ἔρως ἔχει με τῶν ᾿ προφητῶν,
καὶ τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων, οἵ εἰσι Χριστοῦ
φίλοι. διαλογιζόμενός τε πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν
τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ, ταύτην μόνον. εὕρι-
σκον φιλοσοφίαν ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ σύμφο-
ρον" οὕτως δὴ καὶ διὰ ταῦτα φιλόσοφος
ἐγώ.---. 225. [§ 8. p. 109.]
[812]
272 Justin’sesteem of Holy Scripture in comparison of philosophy.
pruitve took its place, and penetrated the innermost heart of the
ve one Holy man. ;
catHouie 4, “With what care this heavenly flame was afterwards
cuene'_ cherished by Justin is very clear from his writings; in which
he throughout extols the holy Scriptures with extraordinary
praises, (lightly regarding philosophy even of the highest
order, in comparison with them,) and every where appeals to’
them, strenuously affirming that all divine truth must be
sought in them alone. Especially worthy of observation are
his words, near the commencement of his Exhortation to
the Gentiles. After shewing there at length, that nothing
certain respecting divine things can be known or learnt in
the writings of philosophers, of whatever sect they be, he at
last concludes*; “ Since, therefore, it is not possible to learn
anything true respecting religion from your teachers, who
have given you sufficient proof of their own ignorance by their
divisions among themselves, I think it remains for us to pass
over to our ancestors, who are both much earlier in time
than the teachers that existed among you, and who teach us
nothing of their own ‘private fancy, nor yet differ among
themselves, or labour to overthrow each other’s teaching, but
having received their knowledge from God without conten-
tion and without party strife, instruct us in the same: for it
was not possible for men to know things so great and divine,
either by nature or by human thought, but only by the gift
which in those ages * came down from above upon holy men.”
What could have been said more clear, or more apposite to
our purpose? Justin thought that nothing whatever of truth
respecting divine things could be learnt with certainty from
heathen philosophers, and that therefore we must always
have recourse to inspired men when such subjects come to
be treated of. Is it then likely that he himself wished to
[313]
1 πηνικαῦ-
τα.
draw his doctrine respecting
" οὐκοῦν ἐπειδῆπερ οὐδὲν ἀληθὲς περὶ
θεοσεβείας παρὰ τῶν ὑμετέρων διδασκά-
λων μανθάνειν ἐστὶ δυνατὸν, ἱκανὴν ὑμῖν
ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἑαυτῶν ἀγνοίας διὰ τῆς
πρὺς ἀλλήλους στάσεως παρεσχηκότων,
ἀκόλουθον ἡγοῦμαι ἀνελθεῖν ἐπὶ τοὺς
ἡμετέρους προγόνους, τοὺς καὶ τοὺς χρό-
νους τῶν παρ᾽ ὑμῖν διδασκάλων πολλῷ
προειληφότας, καὶ μηδὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ἰδίας
αὐτῶν φαντασίας διδάξαντας ἡμᾶς, μηδὲ
God and the divine Persons,
πρὺς ἀλλήλους διενεχθέντας ἢ τὰ ἀλλή-
λων ἀνατρέπειν πειρωμένους, ἀλλ᾽ ἀφι-
λονείκως καὶ ἀστασιάστως τὴν παρὰ Θεοῦ
δεξαμένους γνῶσιν, καὶ ταύτην διδάσκον-
τας ἡμᾶς. οὔτε γὰρ φύσει, οὔτε ἀνθρω-
πίνῃ ἐννοίᾳ οὕτω μεγάλα καὶ θεῖα γινώ-
σκειν ἀνθρώποις δυνατὸν, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἄνω-
θεν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἁγίους ἄνδρας τηνικαῦτα
μὐ ῤγαρουυις δωρεᾷ.---ὉΡ. 8, 9. [ὃ 8. Ρ.
12.]
Justin on abiding uniformly in the Scripture doctrine. 978
CHAP. V.
(surely by far the most sublime and heavenly among things
§ 3, 4.
great and divine,) from the writings either.of Plato, or of any
other philosophical sect whatever? But in another passage
also he expressly teaches, that in any questions whatever
about religion the Scriptures alone are to be heard, our proofs
to be derived from them, their words again and again incul-
cated, that nothing in the world can be found out by any
man better than what these Scriptures contain. His words
occur in his Dialogue with Trypho to the following effecti;
“ For it is a ridiculous thing to see the sun, and the moon,
and the other stars, always pursuing the same path, and
accomplishing the changes of the seasons; and a man who
is an arithmetician*, if one ask, how many twice two are, ! τὸν ψηφι-
[not] ceasing to answer again ‘four,’ because he has often oa rs:
said ‘four’ before; and all other things, in like manner,
which are firmly allowed by general consent’, always asserted 2 παγίως
and confessed in the same way: and yet to see the man who ae
discourses out of the prophetical Scriptures, leave them *, 3 ἐᾷν.
and not uniformly allege the same Scriptures, but imagine [314]
himself able to produce a something better than the Scrip- 97
ture.” In these words he also very beautifully describes the
supreme consistency of the Christian, with which he stedfastly
cleaves to the Scriptures alone. As much as to say, You
may more easily turn the sun and the moon and the rest of
the stars from their appointed course, or persuade a mathe-
matician to desert his own well-known principles, than drive
the true Christian from that his sacred standard and most
certain rule of the Scriptures. Who now can even suspect,
that on the fundamental doctrine οἵ Christianity,’ Justin
turned aside from the beaten path of Holy Scripture to
strange dogmas, or wished to introduce into the Churches of
Christ a new doctrine concerning Christ, and so (once more
to use Zwicker’s phrase) a new Christ, in opposition to the
truth of Scripture itself, and also of that apostolic tradition
which obtained everywhere before his time? |
παγίως ὁμολογεῖται, ἀεὶ. ὡσα τως λέγε-
i γελοῖον μὲν γὰρ πρᾶγμά ἐστιν ὁρᾷν h
σθαι καὶ ὁμολογεῖσθαι" τὸν δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν
τὸν ἥλιον, καὶ τὴν σελήνην, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα
ἄστρα τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδὸν ded καὶ τὰς τροπὰς
τῶν ὡρῶν ποιεῖσθαι, καὶ τὸν ψηφιστικὸν
ἄνδρα, εἰ ἐξετάζοι τὸ, τὰ δὶς δύο πόσα
ἐστὶ, διὰ τὸ πολλάκις. εἰρηκέναι ὅτι τέσ-
σαρα, [μὴ] παύσεσθαι τοῦ πάλιν λέγειν
ὅτι τέσσαρα, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὁμοίως ὅσα
. BULL.—J. 6. 6.
γραφῶν τῶν προφητικῶν ὁμιλίας ποιού-
μενον ἐᾷν καὶ μὴ τὰς αὐτὰς ἀεὶ λέγειν
γραφὰς, ἄλλ᾽ ἡγεῖσθαι ἑαυτὸν βέλτιον
τῆς γραφῆς γεννήσαντα eimety.—Pp.311,
812. [8 85. p. 182.]
1
" PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
[315]
’
1 ἀπό.
2 σπορᾶς.
3. ἀμυδρῶς.
[816]
΄
274 Justin ; that thePlatonic doctrines were borrowed from ours,
-
5. What shall we say of the fact, that the excellent father
(as if he had been a prophet, and had foreseen what was to
come) has himself in his own words, as if on purpose, anti-
cipated this calumny of Zwicker’s? For in more than one
passage he expressly teaches, that the Christian doctrine
about the Logos, although like the Platonic, was certainly
not derived from the Platonists ; but that Plato rather derived
whatever he wrote correctly about the Word of God, from
the Church of God, to which that doctrine was of old partially
known. Thus in the first Apology, after acknowledging,
“that the doctrines of Plato are not repugnant to Christ’s
(ὅτι οὐκ ἀλλότριά ἐστι τὰ Πλάτωνος διδάγματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ),
he presently adds* ; “‘ Whatever, therefore, has been well said
among any people, is the property of us Christians; for the
Word of * the unbegotten and ineffable God we worship and
love next after God, forasmuch as He also became man for
our sake, in order that having been made a partaker of our
‘affections also, He might likewise effect their cure. For all
writers, by the germ’ of the implanted Word which is in
them, were able dimly* to see the things that are; for the
seed of anything, and the copy of it which, so far as is possible,
is given to us, is one thing; and the thing itself, of which the
participation and imitation accrues to us according to the
grace which is from Him, is another.”? Here you will observe
this also in passing, that Justin does not maintain what he
has stated concerning the Logos, as his own private sentiment,
but as the doctrine and belief that was common to all true
Christians. “He speaks, however, still more clearly on this
subject in Apol. ii.) addressed to Antoninus, near the end;
where after saying, that even Plato had learnt “ that the whole
world was made by the Word of God” (λόγῳ Θεοῦ γεγεννῆ-
σθαι Tov πάντα κόσμον) ; nay more, that the Third Person of
the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, was not entirely unknown to
Plato, he subjoins; “We therefore do not hold the same
opinions with others, but they all express.our views, copying
K Goa οὖν παρὰ πᾶσι καλῶς εἴρηται,
ἡμῶν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐστί, τὸν yap ἀπὸ
ἀγεννήτου καὶ ἀρρήτου Θεοῦ λόγον μετὰ
τὸν Θεὸν προσκυνοῦμεν, καὶ ἀγαπῶμεν,
ἐπειδὴ καὶ 80 ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος γέγονεν,
ὅπως καὶ τῶν παθῶν τῶν ἡμετέρων συμ-
μέτοχος γενόμενος καὶ ἴασιν ποιήσηται.
οἱ γὰρ συγγραφεῖς πάντες, διὰ τῆς ἐνού-
ons ἐμφύτου τοῦ λόγου σπορᾶς, ἀμυδρῶς
ἐδύναντο ὁρᾷν τὰ ὄντα ἕτερον γάρ ἐστι
σπέρμα τινὸς καὶ μίμημα κ κατὰ δύναμιν
δοθὲν, καὶ ἕτερον αὐτὸ, οὗ κατὰ χάριν
τὴν ἀ ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου. ἡ μετουσία καὶ μίμησις
γίνεται, —P. 51. [Apol. ii. 13. p. 97.]
οὐ τὰ αὐτὰ οὖν ἡμεῖς ἄλλοις δοξά-
ἕομεν, ἀλλ᾽ of πάντες τὰ ἡμέτερα μιμού-
et ee
=~ *) . ~~
and that the Christians’ knowledge was derived from God. 275
from us. With us, then, you may hear and learn these things omar. v.
from men who do not know even the forms of letters, illiterate
indeed and barbarians in speech, but wise and full of faith in
understanding, and some of them even maimed and blind;
so that you may understand that it is not by human wisdom
that these things are brought about, but that they are spoken
through the power of God.” Surely this single passage of
Justin is enough to overthrow utterly that entire mass of
conjectures, (however large it be,) which Zwicker heaped up
against manifest truth. For Justin here plainly teaches,
_ 1. That the opimion of the universe having been created by
the Word had not been borrowed, either by himself or any
other Christian, from the writings of Plato; but that Plato
rather took his own doctrines about the Logos from the
sacred books of the Christians (of the Old Testament, that is,
as Justin shortly before in the same passage explains his
meaning). 2. This same opinion he asserts and maintains
before the emperor and before the nations, not as his own
peculiar opinion, but as the belief and doctrine of the Catholic
Church,—in other words, of all true Christians. Nay, he even
shews, that the sacred mysteries of the Trinity were so com-
monly and so well known among Christians, that even unedu- [317]
cated and ignorant men, who knew not their alphabet, could
discourse of them in a more divine and a clearer manner than
could Plato himself. 8. From this he most justly concludes,
that Christians had been taught that doctrine “ not by human
wisdom ” (ov σοφίᾳ ἀνθρωπείᾳ), (not from the writings of the
Platonists, much less from the wild dreams of the worst of 28
heretics), but put it forth “by the power of God” (dvvapes
Θεοῦ), (that is, out of the divinely-inspired Scriptures, and
the apostolic teaching everywhere disseminated in the
Church). Surely from such testimony it is abundantly clear,
that St. Justin entertained the same opinion of the heathen
philosophy in general, as Tertullian, and (according to the
testimony of Tertullian) as all the ancient Catholic Christians
did. Precious* indeed are his words, in his Prescription ' aurea.
μενοι λέγουσι. wap ἡμῖν οὖν ἐστι ταῦτα πηρῶν Kal χήρων τινῶν τὰς des’ ὡς
ἀκοῦσαι καὶ μαθεῖν παρὰ τῶν οὐδὲ τοὺς συνεῖναι, οὐ σοφίᾳ ἀνθρωπείᾳ ταῦτα γεγο-
χαρακτῆρας τῶν στοιχείων ἐπισταμένων, νέναι, ἀλλὰ δυνάμει Θεοῦ λέγεσθαι. --
ἰδιωτῶν μὲν καὶ βαρβάρων τὸ φθέγμα, Pp. 92,98. [8 59. p. 78.]
σοφῶν δὲ καὶ πιστῶν τὸν νοῦν ὄντων, καὶ
π᾿ 2
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
OATHOLIO
CHURCH.
tur.
[318]
276 = Justin’s doctrine of the Logos different from Plato's.
against Heretics, chap. 7,8™; “He” (Paul) “takes us to
record’, that we ought to beware of philosophy, when he
writes to the Colossians”, ‘Beware lest any man spoil you
through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition οὗ.
1 contesta- men,’ &c.
He had been at Athens, and by his conferences
there had come to know that human wisdom, which affected
to be the truth, and interpolated the truth, itself too di-
vided into manifold heresies of its own by the variety of its
mutually repugnant sects. What connexion, then, is there |
between Athens and Jerusalem? What between the Academy
and Church? What between heretics and Christians? Our
instruction is from the porch of Solomon, who himself also
taught that the Lord must be sought in simplicity of heart.
Let them see to it, who have propounded a Stoical, and a
Platonic, and a Dialectic Christianity. After Jesus Christ we
need no curious investigation, after the Gospel no inquiries.
When we believe, we feel no longing to believe anything
beyond. For the first thing we believe is this, that there is
nothing else beyond that we ought to believe.”
6. After this, it is unnecessary for us to carry on the con-
troversy, about which some learned men contend; as to
whether Plato’s view about the Logos resembled the doctrine
of Justin and others, who agree in opinion with him? He
who wishes may consult on this point Casaubon’s Exercita-
tions on the Apparatus of Baronius, p. 5, and Peter Lanse-
lius’s Examination of Casaubon’s Calumnies, chap. 1.° This
is certain, that there is so wide a difference between the
opinions of Plato and Justin, that that alone makes it suffi-
ciently evident that Justin did not take his views from Plato.
Accordingly, Justin himself, in the passage already quoted,
™ Philosophiam contestatur caveri Salomonis est, qui- et ipse tradiderat,
oportere,scribens ad Colossenses, Videte
ne quis vos circwmveniat per philoso-
phiam et inanem seductionem, secun-
dum traditionem hominum, &e....
Fuerat Athenis, et istam sapientiam
humanam, affectatricem et interpola-
tricem veritatis, de congressibus nove-
rat, ipsam quoque in suas hereses
multipartitam varietate sectarum in-
vicem repugnantium. Quid ergo Athe-
nis et Hicroaolymis: quid academiz
et ecclesize ? quid heereticis et Chris-
tianis? nostra institutio de porticu
Dominum in simplicitate cordis esse
querendum. Viderint qui Stoicum,
et Platonicum, et dialecticum Chris-
tianismum protulerunt. Nobis curio-
sitate opus non est post Christum
Jesum, nec inquisitione post evange-
lium. Cum credimus, nihil desidera-
mus ultra credere. Hoc enim prius
credimus, non esse quod ultra credere
debeamus.—[pp. 204, 205.]
" Col. ii. 8.
° This treatise is appended to the
Works of Justin, edit. Par. 1636.
—_ OO — ς . ὦ.»
Socinians say that St. John’s doctrine was from Plato. 277
expressly reminded us that Plato saw that mystery but dimly
(ἀμυδρῶς) and obscurely.
Justin’s doctrine about the Logos was derived from the school
of Plato, with just the same probability as Amelius the Pla-
tonic philosopher, after reading the first verses of John’s
Gospel, once complained that the Evangelist had transferred
into his book his master’s mysteries, and had made the
secrets of Plato his own. “ By Jove,” he exclaimed, “that
barbarian agrees in opinion with our Plato, that the Word
of God is constituted in the order of the beginning.” And
indeed among the modern Unitarians of England, there has
not been wanting one, who has been bold enough to main-
tain, in no obscure terms, that the doctrine of the Apostle
John, at the beginning of his Gospel, was originally drawn
from the puddles of the Platonic philosophers. I refer to
the author of a tract entitled, “ An Historical Vindication
of the Book entitled the Naked Gospel, presented to the Uni-
versity of Oxford ».” In his Preface to the Reader he bitterly
inveighs against those “ who defiled the simple and primitive
chastity of the Gospel with the ceremonies and the vain
philosophy of the pagans,’ and “imposed upon the world
Platonic enthusiasm for faith, mystery, and revelation,” &c.
No one, however dull of perception, can fail to see that the
trifler here aims a blow at the doctrine of the most holy
Trinity, as acknowledged and received in the Catholic Church.
In the course of his work, moreover, the author attempts to
shew, how that vain philosophy, that enthusiasm of Plato,
crept first into the Jewish, and then into the Christian Church.
He 5808, that the Jews who were dispersed throughout
Egypt and Syria first learnt Plato’s philosophy after it had
been carried from Greece to those countries ; that there were
two leading doctrines of the Platonic philosophy, one con-
cerning the pre-existence of souls, the other about a divine
Trinity; which two dogmas, accordingly, were afterwards
prevalent in the Jewish Church. In the following page you
may read his own precise words"; “The Jews were of these
P [The Naked Gospel was published lated by him (into his Life of Euse-
anonymously at Oxford in.1690, in _ bius). See the Life of Bull, p.319.—B.]
English, the author beingArthur Bury, 4 Pp. 12, 13.
D.D. The Historical Vindication was rp, 14,
either written by Le Clerc, or trans-
CHAP..v.
§ 5—7..
7. Therefore, (to finish this chapter,) Zwicker judged, that .
[319]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[320]
29
278 The Platonic doctrines were derived from the Jews.
opinions when our Saviour and His Apostles came into the
world; and this perhaps is the reason why we find accord-
ingly, as it has been observed by several learned men, several
Platonic phrases in the New Testament, especially in the
Gospel of St.John. It is well known that Amelius the Pla-
tonic philosopher, having read the -beginning of this Gospel,
remarked that the Apostle spake like Plato. In effect, this
philosopher might have said, according to his principles, ‘The
Reason was in the beginning with God, and was God’ She it
is who hath made all things, who is the Life and Light of
men,” &c. From a comparison of these passages it is only
too clear, that this author was really of opinion, that the doc-.
trine delivered by the Apostle John at the beginning of his
Gospel was by no means divinely inspired, but was borrowed
from the empty philosophy of the heathen, and savoured
altogether of the enthusiasm of Plato. Well, indeed, may we
here again exclaim, in the words of the blessed Polycarp,
“ Good God, for what times hast Thou reserved us, that we
should have to endure such things!” But this author betrays
his ignorance, no less than his- impiety, by saying, that the
ancient Jews of the dispersion learnt the mystery of the
Holy Trinity from the Platonists; because it is, on the con-
trary, manifest that Plato himself learned what he wrote about —
that mystery from the older philosophy of the Jews. At all
events, as Justin Martyr has observed, one may see some
traces of that mystery in the Scriptures of the Old Testament
which are far more ancient than Plato. If, however, any one
of our countrymen desires to go further into this subject, he
may consult the lucid treatise, written in English, by the
very learned Allix, entitled, ‘‘ The Judgment of the Ancient
Jewish Church against the Unitarians.”
OE —— ———— νυ ne ie Ὕ
——— Se νον
—e-—- ΩΝ ΌΝΝ
oe
a. a
CHAPTER VI.
THAT JUSTIN ABHORRED WITH ALL HIS HEART THE PAGAN RELIGION AND THE
WORSHIP OF MANY GODS. THAT THE ARGUMENT WITH WHICH JUSTIN AND OTHER
ANCIENT WRITERS ESTABLISHED THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST, DERIVED FROM THE
TRULY DIVINE WORSHIP WHICH IS ALLOWED HIM IN THE HOLY - SCRIPTURES, IS
QUITE INVINCIBLE.
1. THE three remaining causes which Zwicker has invented
can be reduced to two; so that the remembrance of Gen-
tilism, that is, of many gods, not wholly obliterated, and the
custom of deifying distinguished men, may together form one
cause (for certainly the latter is a part of the unobliterated
remembrance of Gentilism) ; while “the scrupulous dread of [321]
worshipping one who was only a man,” may make the other.
With respect to the former cause, I cannot but feel surprised _
at the extreme shamelessness of Zwicker, who devised it, or
at least his very gross ignorance of the writings of Justin
Martyr. Read, I entreat you, the holy father’s Exhortation
to the Greeks, his two Apologies, and his treatise On the
Monarchy of God. With how many and how powerful argu-
ments does he there assail the polytheism of the heathen !
Besides, who would suppose that an illustrious doctor of the
Christian faith was not most fully instructed in that ele-
mentary doctrine of the Gospel, of the unity of God, which
even the most ignorant catechumen well knew ; or. that one,
who was a most resolute champion and martyr for Christ
against the pagan superstitions and impieties, was still so
_foully sticking in the mire of heathenism itself?
2. But with respect to that second cause, (which was the last
of what the mad brain of the heretic could devise,) it should
be observed, that it is diametrically opposed to the former.
For certainly it is utterly impossible for any one not to be
averse to the custom of deifying men, and yet at the same
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
. OATHOLIC
CHURCH
[322]
30
280 Justin rightly inferred the divinity of Christ from the
time to feel a horror and a scrupulous objection to worshipping
one who is a mere man; for the two things are perfectly
° incompatible. ᾿ Having remarked this by the way, we will
consider that cause by itself. And here indeed we will allow
to Zwicker, that Justin and other fathers were led to ascribe
a divine nature to Christ, by this argument among others, __
that in the Holy Scriptures divine worship and adoration are
often and in express terms commanded to be paid to Him.
But what will the heretic gain by this concession? Surely
nothing ; for that reason certainly affords a sufficiently firm
foundation for this doctrine. For both reason dictates, and
holy Scripture by many most explicit testimonies demon-
strates, that the worship and-adoration which truly belong
to God, ought not to be paid to any mere creature, however
exalted, but to Him alone, who is very God. And here 1
beseech you, my Christian reader, to forgive me, if I am rather
lengthy in defending this reasoning of the fathers, both that
I may fulfil the promise which I made above, and particu-
larly, because, if this ground be well βρεῖς, εὐθεῖ it strikes at
the very heart of the Socinian heresy.
3. In the first place, then, we have the express command-
ment of God Himself, as given in Deut. vi. 13 and x. 20,
and repeated by our Saviour in Matt. iv. 10, “Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve ;”
where the exclusive particle only confines divine worship to
our Lord and God, and entirely removes from participation
in it every created being whatsoever. - The Socinians object,
“that by such exclusive particles as only, when applied to
God, those beings are never absolutely excluded, who are
dependent on God, in the particular subject in question.
Thus God is said to be the only wise, the only powerful, the
only immortal; but yet other beings, who by the gift of God
are made partakers of those qualities, ought not to be abso-
lutely excluded from possessing wisdom, power, and immor-
tality. Therefore again, although it is said that God alone
is to be adored and worshipped, He who in this particular
depends on God, because of the divine government over
all things received from Him, ought not to be absolutely
. Chap. 1.4.-[p. 247.] + - &c. in opposition to Meisner’s Article
> See Schlictingius On the Trinity, on God, pp. 206, 207.
divine worship due to Him. Socinian exceptions. 281
excluded, but should rather be tacitly included along with nap. vr.
Him.” But, 1. Who gave to these audacious persons the ΠΕΣ. 5
liberty of making exceptions, where the law of God makes
none? The law simply commands that divine adoration
should be given to God alone. As to their pretence, that [823]
in the Scriptures God is also said to be the only wise, &c.,
and yet that others ought not to be absolutely excluded from
wisdom, &c., who have been made partakers of such qualities,
&c. ; it is indeed sophistry. For although, when God is said
in the Scriptures to be the only wise; others are yet not
thereby excluded from all wisdom whatsoever, which is com-
patible with their nature ; it is still certain, that by the exclu-
sive particle “only” in those passages every created being is
absolutely excluded from divine wisdom, that is, the wisdom
which belongs to God. In like manner, when God is said in
Scripture to be the only object of worship, the only object of
honour, others are not on that account excluded from such
worship and honour as may correspond to their nature and
condition ; still all other beings are simply and absolutely
excluded from divine worship, I mean that which belongs to
God. 2. This answer supposes, that the divine government
over all things can be communicated to a mere creature;
which is certainly most false. For of course by “the divine
government over all things,” all men of sound mind under-
stand that almighty power by which God preserves all created
beings, to whom He has given being, in that being, and rules
and governs them; as well as that right and dominion of
God, following -therefrom, whereby every creature is subject .
to Him, and every rational creature is bound in his measure ! 1 modulo.
to submit himself with all his faculties to God, and to give
himself up to be employed to His glory and the increase of
his own happiness. At least no other divine government but
such as this can be an adequate foundation for divine worship.
And. that such divine government over all things cannot
belong to any creature, is clear from the nature of the case.
If therefore divine worship should be given to none but to
Him, to whom the divine government over all things is con-
ceded, (a proposition which is certainly most true,) it will
necessarily follow, that to God alone must divine worship be
paid, as is expressly provided in the law which we have quoted. [324]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[325]
282 Of worshipping those that are not by nature God.
4, In the second place, Paul objects it against the Gala-
tians as a sin, that, “when they knew not God, they did
service to them which by nature are no gods” (τοῖς μὴ φύσει
οὖσι Θεοῖς). Gal. iv. 8. From this passage it is manifest
that divine worship is not to be given to any being but Him
to whom a divine nature also belongs. _ For surely it cannot
be that, what was an extreme fault in the Galatians, while
they were yet continuing in paganism, should be lawful for
us who have the privilege of gospel light; much less that it
should become a primary duty of a Christian man. The
answer of Crellius on this passage is most ridiculous; for, in
his Chrstian Ethics, iii. 2°, he thus writes ; “ It is also evident
from this why Paul makes this a sin in the Galatians, although
now a past one,—that afore time, when they knew not God,
‘they did service to them who by nature are no gods,’—
because there existed no one before, nor, so long as they were
ignorant of the true God, was any one known to the Galatians,
who was true God, that was not at the same time also by nature
God; and, consequently, whosoever at that period worshipped
(especially, absolutely, and continuously,) one who was not
God by nature, worshipped a false God.” Who can believe
that this thought entered the mind of Paul, while he was
writing those words? Besides, the idea of there being a true
God, who is not also by nature God, will (notwithstanding
the loud objections of the Socinians) certainly be deemed
incomprehensible by every sound-minded person.
5. But that is an especially remarkable passage in Rey.
xix. 10, where the angel thus addresses John, who had fallen
at his feet to worship him; “ See thou do it not; I am thy
fellow-servant, and of thy brethren, that have the testimony
of Jesus; worship God.” The angel here rejects for two rea-
sons the worship which John had offered him. 1. That he was
his fellow-servant (σύνδουλος). As much as to say, Whoever
is the servant of God is not an object of divine worship ; but —
T am myself a servant of God, as well as thou, although placed
in a higher grade; therefore it is not on any account per-
mitted thee to offer me divine worship. This reason, surely,
extends equally to every creature; since there is no creature,
how eminent soever be the position of honour in which he is ©
¢ Pp. 229, 280,
- ~~
The angel rejecting the worship of St. John ; Grotius’ view.283
placed, who is not a servant of God quite as much as other cur, vu
creatures. If therefore Christ were a mere creature, it would πὰ κι...
not be lawful to pay divine worship to Him. I am aware
that Grotius thought that the worship which the angel refused
_ when offered by John, was of that kind which they call “ civil,”
and which we read was sometimes paid to the prophets with-
out sin; and that therefore the angel did not prohibit that 31
worship, as being unlawful in itself, but as being unworthy of
the apostolic office, which John was at that time discharging.
For thus does that very learned man write, in his Exposition
of the Decalogue, on the Second Commandment; “ Though
He forbids gifts and libations, He does not forbid tokens of
reverence, &c. For the angel’s putting from him such
honour offered to himself, in the Apocalypse, does not proceed
from there being anything unlawful in it, but the angel puts
the apostle on an equality with himself; both being servants
of Christ, who is now the Head of angels (see Col. 1. 16, 18) ;
and the office of an apostle, provided for the salvation of man,
being in no respect inferior to that of an angel ; and colleagues
are not accustomed to use towards each other these signs of
submission.” But in both parts of his opinion this great
man was mistaken '. For it was not the civil adoration merely, * halluei-
which the angel refused, as is clear enough from the angel’s ee
own words, “ Worship God” (τῷ Θεῷ προσκύνησον), and [826]
especially, “‘ See thou do it not,” which forbid not only what
is unbecoming, but what is unlawful, and ought to be alto-
gether avoided. But the learned writer seems. here to have
been in error, in not having accurately enough distinguished
between John’s prostration, and that worship which the
apostle, when prostrate, was on the point of offering. Yet
the words are clear enough; “I fell at his feet to worship
him” (ἔπεσον ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ).
Where it is manifest that, in what John did, the object is
especially noted on account of which the act itself was
censurable; for to fall to the earth, and at an angel’s feet,
was not faulty in itself; since it is certain that such honour
was often aforetime paid by holy men, without sin, even to
human beings, as kings and prophets. But the apostle is
blamed for having prostrated himself at the angel’s feet with
the intention of worshipping him, i. 6. of paying him divine
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
' OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
1 θυσίαν
αἰνέσεως.
[827]
2 aliquid
vulgarius.
284 The worship offered to the angel, was due only to God.
honour (perhaps by offering him “a sacrifice of thanksgiving *
for the most joyous tidings of the marriage of the Lamb).
Therefore the angel does not so much censure what John
had already done, as forbid what he meant to do, dpa μή;
“ See thou do it not.” Nor is there more truth [in Grotius’s
other assertion], that the angel prohibited the: worship of
John, simply in consideration of his being at that moment
invested with the office of the apostleship : since it is evident
from a parallel passage, (Rev. xxii. 9,) that the angel’s pro-
hibition is to be extended: to all Christians universally. In
that passage the angel thus speaks; “See thou do it not; for
I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets,
and of them which keep the sayings of this book (καὶ τῶν Tnpovv-
των τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου): worship God,” where
mention is made not only of the prophets, but of all other
pious men or Christians, who are described in the words,
“and of them which keep the sayings of this book.” A de-
scription which is broader and more general than the word
‘“prophets,” and therefore is placed after that word, as being
more common’. And thus even Crellius explains the passage,
in his Christian Ethics, 11.64. Grotius, however, in this place,
in opposition to the Greek MSS., and even to very obvious
reason, has omitted the particle καὶ, “ and,’’ with what view.
Ρ |
I cannot*tell, except it be to serve his own hypothesis. Thus
much then on the angel’s first reason. 2. The second is
intimated in the words, “ Worship God” (τῷ Θεῷ προσκύ-.
vnoov), which seem to be taken from the divine command,
adduced by our Saviour, in Matt. iv. 10. Now it is plain,
that the words must be understood in what they call the ex-
clusive sense, as if the angel had said: “ That worship, which
thou art on the point of offering to me, God only is entitled
to; see therefore that thou give it not to me.” Otherwise,
every one must see that there is no force at all in the
angel’s reason. These passages, therefore, (to which I could
have added many others,) incontestably prove, (what Zwicker
would have Justin to have laid down as the foundation of his
opinion concerning the Son’s divine nature,) that to none
except to God only ought truly divine worship to be paid.
6, The arguments which the Socinians allege to the con-
ἃ P. 292,
Of the worship given to angels under the Old Testament. 285
trary are of no weight. They object, in the first place, that
holy men under the Old Testament offered divine honours,
and that without incurring sin, to angels, who treated with
them in God’s name. We have, however, already, in our
Defence of the Nicene Creed °, fully demonstrated, that, as
often as any angel is in holy Scripture designated 7),
_ JmHovan, and has divine honours paid to him, the fathers
were of opinion, that then not a mere angel was to be under-
stood, but one with whom the Logos was present; and that
this opinion of theirs is not only not repugnant to any Scrip-
ture, but actually confirmed by the express testimony of Paul
himself. I add, that this opinion of the fathers acquires no
little strength from those passages which we have = of,
CHAP. VI.
8 5—7.
[328]
and which attribute divine worship in a peculiar sense! to —
the true God. Lastly, it especially makes in favour of ! appro-
the same opinion, that under the Gospel we never read P™*
anywhere that any, who was called an angel, was regarded
as worthy of such honour, except by John when carried
away by sudden feeling, whom, however, the angel himself
reproved, for the very reason, that he was about to offer to
him a worship too -iabaat for the een of an meet and due
to none but God.
7. The reason of this some very learned chedloeiase’ have
inquired into, and among them Ribeira, who, in his Com-
mentary on the Apocalypse, on chap. xix., thus writes ;
“Why is it, that before the Redeemer’s advent angels are
worshipped by men, and speak not [in reproof]; but after-
wards they refuse adoration ;—why, but because, after they
behold this nature of ours, which they had formerly looked
down on, taken up above themselves, they shudder to see
it prostrate before themselves; and no longer presume to
look down on that [nature] below them as weak, which
above them (namely, in the King of heaven) they revere’?”
And this reasoning of Ribera’s% is accepted by Crellius
himself, Ethic. Chr. iii. 6". But for my own part, I regard
this reasoning as subtle rather than solid,—induced chiefly
“Ei ed. 1705.)—B.]
f [These are not the words of & [i.e. Gregory’s. For Crellius was
Ribeira himself, but of Gregory, whom not unaware of the real author of this
he quotes by name, in Hom. viii. on argument. —B.]
the Gospels. (1.6. Pope Gregory I. In P, 292.
Evang. lib. i. Hom. 8. vol. i, p. 1468,
32
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[329]
286 View, that the exaltation of our nature by the Incarnation
by the consideration, that not a single vestige can be dis-
covered of such a reason in the passage of the Apocalypse
which Ribeira is explaining. On the contrary, the angel
there puts from him the worship which John was about to.
offer him, on grounds which are of perpetual force and truth,
and which equally belong to the times of the Old and. the
New Testament. The angel first urges, that he is a fellow-
servant of the faithful; might not the same have been said of
- angels under the Old Testament? Certainly it might. For
1 eultus
civilis.
[330]
David even at that period says, respecting the angels, “ Who
maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flaming
fire,’ Psalm civ. 4; with which compare Heb. i. 7 and last.
Even under the Old Testament, therefore, angels no less
than men were ministers of the Most High God, although -
occupying a more exalted position of ministration, in which
they have continued even since the Lord’s coming; this is
evident from many passages of the New Testament, which ©
shew plainly enough, that an eminent degree of honour and
reverence is due to them above any mortal beings; sce
particularly 1 Cor. xi. 10; 1 Tim. v. 21. But the second
reason of the angel, expressed in the words, ‘“ Worship God,”
how evidently does this extend to the Old Testament also!
Indeed, (as has been already observed,) it seems to be taken
from the very words of the Mosaic law. I will state the
whole subject in a few words; when we inquire concerning
the worship of angels, we mean, either civil worship * only,
or else religious and altogether divine worship. The former
kind is even now, under the Gospel, due to the angels,
owing to their great superiority to man and the eminence
of their power; the latter, it was not allowable, even under
the Old Testament, to offer to angels, because of their infi-
nite distance from the Most High God.. Hence we read,
even in the Old Testament, that the angel who appeared to
Manoah, with great earnestness declined divine worship,—
namely, sacrifice. For when Manoah was about to detain
the angel, that he might set a kid before him, the angel says
to him in reply, “Though thou detain me, I will not eat of
thy bread; and if thou wilt offer a burnt offering, thou
must offer it unto the Lord.” As much as to say, There
is a two-fold purpose in offering food; either that it may
led the angel to decline St. John’s worship, unfounded. 287
be eaten after the manner of men, or else that it be accepted CHAP. VI.
of God’, and consumed. On the first ground, it is not 5 ’—*:
“needful to offer it to me; on the second, it is not lawful; ! Deo
for know, that sacrifice must be offered to God only. Judges SP
xii. 16. :
8. What then, you will ask, must be said, in reply to
the proposed difficulty? The solution of it, indeed, is not
far off, if only we do not refuse to abide by the judgment
of the fathers. For they explain it thus: Under the Old
Testament, the Word’ and Son of God, the Angel of the ? Λόγος.
Covenant, frequently conversed with mankind, either through
angels, or at least through angelic representations, i.e.
such as are usually assumed by angels; and further, was
worshipped with divine honours, and that most justly, by
the holy men to whom He appeared. These apparitions,
however, as they were preludes, so to speak, and shadows
and figures of the future incarnation of the Son of God,
justly ceased after His advent in real human flesh; for
when the truth was manifested, what need was there of
shadows? Certainly this reason, assigned by the fathers,
appears to me to be far preferable to all the conjectures of
the moderns.
9. But to dismiss, at last, all conjectures; it is certain,—
and, indeed, allowed by our opponents themselves,—that
truly divine worship, such as is commanded in the Scriptures
to be given to the Lord Jesus, ought by no means to be
offered to angels, nor was ever presented to them by holy
men under the Old Testament. And, accordingly, the
heretics freely acknowledge, that the adoration which of
old was paid to angels, (granting that they were angels,) was
paid to them on a very different principle from that on
which it is yielded to Jesus, Christ in the Scriptures of
the New Testament. For they recognise here a_ threefold
difference. Ist. The patriarchs adored the angel, when
present, and revealing himself to their sight, by prostrating
themselves before him; but to Christ we are commanded to
pay this honour, when not visible, but (so far as regards His [331]
human nature) very far removed from us, being even in
heaven itself; and it is this which chiefly, though not solely,
distinguishes divine worship from human. The words we are
PRIMITIVE
‘TRADITION
OF -THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH,
1 per se.
2 per acci-
dens.
33
[332]
288 It was not the angel in his own person that was worshipped.
here using are almost the very words of Crellius‘. 2dly. He,
who anciently worshipped an angel, as representing God,
worshipped God Himself really and absolutely Ὁ, and the
angel only accidently’?; nor then was it really the person —
of the angel himself, as such, that was worshipped, but
that of God Himself, whose person he sustained and whom
he represented *. Indeed, the person of the angel was no
more worshipped than was the ark of the covenant, when
holy men, [worshipping] towards it, as the token of the
divine presence, adored God Himself. On the contrary, the
Lord Jesus is set forth in Scripture as being, in Himself,
an object of worship. A truth which is so plain, that
even Socinus! himself allows, that Christ is worthy of
divine honour, and that it is not without the weightiest
causes that the worship of Him is prescribed in holy
writ ; which the Scriptures themselves also expressly teach ;
Rey. v.12. 8dly. An angel of this kind was worshipped on
during the time that he appeared on earth, in the name of
God, and as the representative of His person; when the
representative character was laid aside, divine worship was no
longer due to him; whilst, on the contrary, the Lord J esus
must be worshipped by us perpetually. This perpetuity,
indeed, is restricted by Crellius to the duration of the world;
for thus he writes in a certain passage™; “ Christ’s dite
authority has this pre-eminence, that it is eternal, as the
angel says in Luke i. 88, and is to have no end; that is
to say, SO LONG AS He shall be able to possess a kingdom
over the house of Jacob, and this present state of things
shall last; and it will last as long as the world shall endure,
and as long as death, the last enemy of Christ, shall remain
to be destroyed. For this reason the Son is to be honoured
by all, even as the Father. John v. 23,” &c. Crellius had
in view the passage in 1 Cor. xv. 28, where Paul teaches,
that after the last enemy, death, has been vanquished, the
Son will be subject to the Father, and will deliver up the
kingdom to the Father Himself. But, in my opinion, Peter
Martyr, in his “Common Places*,’ has most excellently
reconciled this passage with those which attribute an absolute
_ i See Ethie. Christ. iii. 6, p. 294. stoph. Frank. p. 6
k See Crell. ibid. p. 277. m Ethic. Christ. iii. 6, p. 275.
1 De Adorat. Chr. Disp. cum Chri- Class, ii. 17, n. 14,
Peter Martyr on 1 Cor. xv. 28. 289
eternity to the kingdom of Christ. “ To reign,’ he says,
“sometimes has the meaning to excel, to be pre-eminent
above others, and to occupy the chief place; and in this
sense Christ will reign for ever. But if we say that to reign
means to discharge the duties of a king—to fight, to defend,
to conquer, and other things of that kind—then Christ
will not reign for ever; for when we shall have become
perfect and complete, we shall not require these aids of
Christ. When He came into the world, He preached, taught,
died for our salvation; and now He intercedes for us with
the Father, defends us from threatening evils, and never
ceases from the duties and actions of a Mediator. In the
-end, however, when all things are settled, He will resign
these offices to the Father, since there will then be no longer
room for them. Just as if a most .powerful sovereign were
to send his only son to some province of his kingdom, which
is suffering under seditions, tumults, and rebellion, and that
son were to go forth with supreme authority and a strong
army; when he has brought all to peace, and reduced the
rebellious to submission, he returns victorious to his father,
triumphs, and delivers to*him the province in a peaceful condi-
tion, no longer employing his authority, or using his legions,”
&e. And certainly, that Christ, after He has delivered up
that His mediatorial kingdom to the Father, will not after-
wards be deprived of His own divine honour, authority,
dignity, and worship; but along with God the Father will
be adored by all the saints, and even by the angels and
archangels, for ever and ever, we learn from many testi-
monies of Scripture. See especially, Rom. ix.5; Heb. xiii. 21;
1 Pet.iv. 11, and v. 11; with 2 Pet. ii. 18; Rev. 1. ὅ, 6, and
v. 12, 13.
10. Let the heretics, therefore, cease to seek a sanction for
their falling cause from the instance of those angels, who
under the Old Testament, while representing God, were
-partakers of divine worship ; for that instance, even on their
own admission, makes nothing whatever for their purpose ;
inasmuch as, from the threefold difference which was just
now assigned, so many arguments can be derived, which
incontestably prove the Son’ s divinity. From the first we
argue as follows ;— 4
BULL.-—J. ©. 0, τ
OHAP. VI.
§ 9, 10.
[333]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE ---
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
δ assump-
tionem.
[334]
2 misero
hoc κρησ-
φυιγέτῳ.
290 1. The Divinity of Christ follows from His being an object of
Any who, being in heaven, can and ought to be adored by
men on earth, is God. But Christ is in heaven, &c. There-
fore, &c. Our opponents allow the minor premiss*; and the
truth of the major is evident. For whosvever is worshipped
in this manner, either is conscious that he is an object of
worship, or is not conscious of it ; if he is not conscious, he
is worshipped in vain; if he is conscious, he must be omni-
scient and omnipresent, and must therefore be God. It will
be said, this conclusion does not follow; for he may know it
by divine revelation. But, I maintain, that is quite impos-
sible. For such knowledge quite transcends the capacity of
a created intelligence; and therefore no creature can have it
either of itself, or from another. As an illustration of this
point, let us take as an instance divine worship in its noblest
part, viz. divine invocation, which it is most clear from
the Scriptures is due to Christ. See Acts ii. 21; vi. 59;
ix. 11, 14; xxii. 16; Rom. x. 13; 1 -Cor..i. 2;-1 Thess. in.
11, 12, 13; and 2 Thess. 1. 16,17. It is surely impossible
that the human soul, with whatever degree of divine light it
may be illuminated, should at one and the same time know
and be conscious of the vows and -prayers, which are every
day at the same moment poured forth to the name of Jesus,
by so many myriads of men, in so many places, at such
vast distances. The mind of Christ [as] man, now exalted
to the right hand of. the Father, is, it is true, perfected
in a wonderful manner; still it is not. infinite, with a power ~
of intelligence capable of reaching to all places, and all per-
sons, who at the same moment in both the hemispheres are
calling on His holy name, (at the same time seeing through
the most hidden recesses of the hearts of those who call upon
Him.) For it is the eye of God alone which has power, at
a single glance as it were, to survey and penetrate the entire
world. Wherefore the Socinians, who have recourse to this
miserable subterfuge * to support the divine invocation of
Christ as a mere man, expose themselves to the ridicule
of all wise men, whilst they themselves ridicule that dream
of the Papists, by which the invocation of saints is usually
defended, the mirror of the Trinity (according to which the
blessed behold in the essence of God, as in a glass, whatever
happens and is done on earth, so that to them are known the
worship. Socinus said we are not bound to invoke Christ. 291
inmost thoughts! of our souls). For if to the soul of Christ, omar. vt. -
[being] man, an omniscience of this kind has been commu- ὃ “τ δ"
nicated by divine revelation, no sufficiently valid reason
can be assigned, why in the same manner the souls of the
saints should not be capable of partaking, and in their mea-
sure really partake, of this [omniscience]. Impregnable
therefore, and for ever, (in spite of the malignant gainsaying? 5 frenden-
of heretics,) will the argument of Novatian for the Son’s βὰν A
divinity continue, in his work on the Trinity, chap. 14;
“If Christ were man only, how is He everywhere present
when invoked; seeing that the power of being everywhere
present is the nature not of man, but of God?” &c.
11, This argument it is certain was a very great difficulty
to Socinus, who, apprehending from it the ruin of his own
view, respecting the mere humanity of Christ, was driven so [335]
far as to assert confidently, that no one is bound by a divine ,
precept to call on the name of Jesus Christ in his prayers.
For he writes to the following effect in his third Epistle to
Radecius°; ‘ Here you first confound adoration with invo-
cation ; which however ought not to be done, as the ground
of each is in some measure different ; so that, although I have
not the least doubt that there is a command about adoring
Christ, and that, even were there not, we are yet altogether
bound to adore Him, yet I do not entertain the same opinion
about invoking him; seeing that invocation is taken to mean >
an actual imploring of help, and a direction of our prayers [to
Him]. For on this point I lay down, that this indeed may
rightly be done by us, I mean, we may rightly direct our
prayers to Christ Himself, and supplicate help of Him by
name, but yet that there is nothing which compels us to do
so.” Again, in his Answer to Francis David’, he says;
“We may invoke Christ our Lord, although we are not
obliged or bound to do so.” But in his Discussion with
Frankenius‘ he breathes forth blasphemy still more daring ;
“ But if any one is endued with so great faith, as to have
courage always to approach directly to God Himself, he has
no need to invoke Christ.” Such are his words. But, 1. if
Radecius confounds adoration with invocation, it is yet certain
1 sensus.
ο [P. 388, vol. i. Op. 1656. ] 4 Pag, 4, [vol. ii. p. 767. ]
» (C. 19. partic. i. vol. ii. p. 457.)
U2
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHUROH.
[336]
1 gatis
idoneum.
292 Socinus ; i. distinction of adoration and invocation ; futile.
that Socinus makes too -subtle a distinction between them;
for it is allowed by all, that invocation is that in which wor-
ship, or adoration truly divine, especially consists, and that
for this reason it is frequently taken in Scripture for the
whole of divine worship. And indeed I am at a loss even to
conjecture what worship truly divine that man concedes to
Christ, who takes away from Him invocation. 2. That asser-
tion ; “ We may invoke Christ our Lord, although we are not
bound to do so;” seems to me incomprehensible. For I ask,
is there any precept in the Scriptures about invoking Christ,
or not? If there is, then it becomes our duty; in other words,
we are bound to invoke Christ. Butif no precept of this kind
is to be met with in holy writ, surely we cannot without sin
invoke Christ; unless indeed divine invocation (the chiefest
part of worship really divine) be dependent on our own choice, |
to offer it to whomsoever we please. It will be said, Although
we are not commanded in the sacred writings to invoke
Christ, yet there are intimations found in Scripture which
clearly shew Christ to be a very fit’ object for divine invoca-
tion, and accordingly one whom we might properly call upon.
But what, I ask, are these intimations? You will perhaps
answer, It is plain from the Scriptures, that Christ both
entertains the greatest goodwill towards us, and also is omni-
scient, that is to say, is thoroughly aware of all our necessities,
both of soul and body; nay more, is the most close searcher
of our hearts, and of the inmost hidden feelings of our souls,
[337]
so that He perceives with what affection each one calls upon
Him, Rey. 11. 23; and lastly, that He is almighty, in that
He is able to deliver.us from all the evils and dangers
which hang over us, be they never so great, and to make us
partakers of all the blessings which we need, Phil. iii. 21.
I answer; These qualities are certainly required in order to
any one’s being a proper object of divine invocation. But,
1. these attributes prove, that the divine nature exists in Him
to whom they belong; since they could not be incident to
a mere man, or indeed any created nature. So that the
hypothesis of Socinus, that Christ is a mere man, falls to the
ground, even by this concession, that Christ is a fit object of
invocation really divine. 2. Our argument will still hold
good. For I ask, whether these perfections of Christ, which
ii. Lawful to call on Christ, but not obligatory ; inconsistent. 293
the Scriptures set forth, and by which He is made to be a fit
object of divine invocation, are of such a kind as to give
Christ a right to that worship? If my question be answered
in the affirmative, it will necessarily follow, that Christ not
merely may be, but also ought to be invoked by us; for surely
we ought to give to every one, and to Christ especially, his
due. If, on the other hand, my question be answered in
the negative, it will follow that we may not lawfully invoke
Christ; forasmuch as we cannot without sin give divine
worship (particularly invocation) to any one to whom it is not
properly due. So utterly inconsistent is the assertion, “ We
may invoke Christ our Lord, although we are not bound to
do so.” This inconsistency was observed even by Niemo-
jevius, who, although in other respects an admirer of Socinus,
makes the following observations, well worthy of our notice,
on the words which we have just quoted from Socinus’s An-
swer to Francis David". ‘I have carefully read,” says he,
“ your reply to the arguments of Francis David, wherein you
assert, and, in opposition to the calumnies of F. David, defend,
the invocation of Christ our Lord and the honour due to His
holy name. But you appear to me to have used a few words,
that not only obscure your excellent view, but even render it
doubtful, and confirm your opponents in their error. If you
ask; what it is which can do so much harm ; I briefly answer ;
The words which you often repeat, ‘ We may invoke Christ
our Lord, although we are not bound or obliged to do so,’ &e.
threaten ruin to the cause you have in hand. 1 cannot see
how it is possible to reconcile, ‘we are not bound, but we
may ;’ as if in the business of our salvation we were at liberty ©
to’ do or to refrain from doing anything, just as it appeared
to ourselves to be rather necessary, or the contrary.”
12. But, in fine, why need we enlarge on this? It is mani-
fest from holy writ, that we are bound by a divine command
to ascribe the worship of divine invocation to Christ our
Lord. This is evident even from the fact, that all Christians
are presumed in the holy Scriptures, to call on Christ our
Lord by virtue of their religion. On this account they are
in the New Testament described by this circumlocution,
“ who call on the name of Jesus,” Acts ix. 14; 1 Cor. 1. 2.
r Niemojev. Epist. i. to Faustus Socinus. [Among the Works of Socinus,
vol. ii. p. 465.) *
CHAP. VI.
§ 11, 12.
[338]
35
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
[339]
294 Christians are bound to call on Christ ; what this means.
Moreover, by the divine command, we are bound to give the
same worship and honour to the Son, which we ascribe to
God the Father, John v. 23. But no one denies that to God
the Father the worship of divine invocation is to be given.
Lastly, the invocation of Jesus Christ is prescribed to us in
the Gospel as a condition absolutely necessary to the attain-
ment of salvation, Rom. x. 13; ‘ Whosoever shall call upon
the name of the Lord shall be ete. ” And that by the title
of “the Lord,” Christ is here meant, is plain from the con-
text. For, 1. the Lord, of the calling upon whom Paul is
speaking, is manifestly the same who is proposed by him as
the object of Christian faith, in vv. 9—12, that is, the Lord
Jesus. 2. The Apostle teaches, that all, under peril of salva-
tion, must invoke the same Lord, in whom many of the Jews
did not believe, and of whom they could plead that they had
not heard, (v. 14,) which every one must see can only be
understood of the Lord Jesus. Now, that the calling on this
Lord is not only commanded, but actually required of all
men, as a necessary condition, of obtaining eternal salvation,
is made clearer than the noon-day light by the words them-
selves which we have quoted. It is almost equally clear, that
the words, “to call on the name of the Lord,” in this passage,
mean either exactly the same as to implore the help of the
Lord, in other words, to direct our prayers unto Him, or at any
rate include that under'them. For the calling on the name
of God has in all a twofold sense in the Scriptures: 1. Gene-
rally, for the whole of divine worship; examples of which
meaning occur in Gen. xii. 8, and xiii. 4, and xxi. 33; and
Psalm xiv. 4, and liii. 4;, and Isaiah xli. 25. Now this signi-
fication (as Crellius here observes not inaptly 5) seems to have
arisen from the circumstance, that invocation is the most
frequent among the various parts of religion, and for that
reason is more prominent than the rest; since necessity itself
usually impels us to invoke Him, whom we esteem and
worship as God, and to implore His assistance; so that the
man cannot be considered to regard any being as his God,
whom he does not call upon. 2. In a stricter sense, it is
taken for prayer, or supplication to God; which word again
is taken sometimes in a wider, sometimes in a more limited
5 Eth. Chr. iii. 11. a τῇ
Difficulties of other Socinians on this point. “9
sense. In the wider signification, when it includes thanks-
giving also ; of which you have examples in Luke xviii. 10, 11 ;
Acts iii. 1, and xvi. 13; Philippians i. 3,4; which arises from
this, that thanksgiving is almost always joined with prayer,
properly so called, and vice versa. It is’ taken in its more
limited and its proper sense, when it is taken for the asking for
some good, or supplication for divine aid. . The first sense of
‘this word seems to me the most natural in this passage. But
whichsoever of the two you choose, our argument from the
passage in question will be sound. But, O blessed Jesus!
for what times hast Thou reserved us, that we must endure so
horrible a blasphemy against Thy most sacred name! Who
can hear this without tears,—specially from those who vaunt
themselves as the worshippers of Thy Majesty,—that no one
is bound to seek from Thee by his prayers Thy grace and
divine assistance ?
OHAP, VI.
§ 12, 1s.
13. Into the same abyss of madness, urged by the same —
necessity, Volkelius and Schlicting have fallen after Socinus ;
the former in his treatise On True Religion, iv. 11, Con-
cerning the invocation of Christ, and the latter against
Meisner, pp. 206 and 207. Nay, even Crellius himself, who
is always prating much about the divine invocation of Jesus
Christ, yet occasionally comes into the opinion of Socinus,
or at any rate does not go far from it. For in his Christian
Ethics, iii. 11, p. 398, treating of extremes in respect to prayer,
on the side of deficiency, he particularly notices those “ who
are not willing to address their prayers to Him, and who
even do not address them to Him when necessary, to whom
they not only might, but sometimes, at least for some definite
reasons, actually ought to address them;” subjoining as
an instance, “as if any one refuses to invoke Christ, when
the rest of the faithful direct their prayers to Him, or when
otherwise edification requires it, or the Spirit Himself suggests
and dictates it to any one.” Observe; it is admitted by the
heretic, that we may indeed address prayers to Christ, but
that we are not absolutely bound to do so, but only in some
specified cases ; as when others do it, that we may not cause
a needless separation from them ; or if edification requires it,
that is, when there is danger that, by our refusing to invoke
Christ, weak brethren should suspect us (and not indeed
[340]
» PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHUROH.
[941]
ὅ0᾽
1 per se.
296. 2. The Divinity of Christ follows from divine honour being ©
without cause) of denying a divine worship to Christ; or,
-lastly, when the Spirit dictates, that is to say, when we are.
led to it by the motion of our own fancy, or as often as.
we are pleased to do so. But why, I ask, must a Christian
wait for a dictate of the Spirit before he ventures to ad-
dress prayers to Christ? Because, forsooth, there is great
danger lest perchance he should pour forth into the air
unprofitable and empty prayers; seeing that it is altogether
uncertain, at what time the man Christ is conscious of our
prayer, or when by divine revelation he may be informed of
the supplications which we have addressed to Him : and there-
fore, in a case so extremely doubtful as this is, we must by all
means employ the Spirit for our teacher. Eternal God! how.
profound a mystery of iniquity is the doctrine of Socinus !
14, I have dwelt the longer on explaining this first distine-
tion, because I thought it would not be without its use to
a reader that is unacquainted with the heretical arts and
frauds with which we have to do. I now come to the second
distinction which Crellius has observed, with the intention
of deriving therefrom a second argument in defence of the
Son’s Divinity. Whoever is to be worshipped directly * with
divine honour, and so is worthy to be adored with divine
worship, must needs be true God, that is, by nature God.
But Christ is to be worshipped directly with divine honour,
as Scripture expressly affirms, and as our opponents them-
selves allow. Therefore Christ is true God. The opposition
here also is capable of most easy proof. No one, I mean, can
be worthy of divine worship, who is not endued with divine,
that is, infinite dignity and excellence; (for this divine excel-
lence is the one only foundation of truly divine worship ;)
but divine and infinite dignity and excellence belongs to
God alone, and cannot be incident to any created being; (for
the finite cannot contain the infinite ;) therefore, ἕο. How
irrefragable this argument is, is clear enough from the dis-
cussion between Faustus Socinus and Christian Frankenius, —
concerning the honour due to Christ, where you will find that
most luckless heretic driven to wonderful straits by almost
this very syllogism, and fairly checkmated by his adversary.
This Christian Frankenius was one of the disciples of Socinus,
who, as well as he, asserted that Christ was a mere man,
due to Him. Disputes among Socinians on this point... 297
though he pushed that dogma of his master further than the
latter meant ; for from it he concluded (and that by necessary
eonsequence), that a religious or divine worship ought by no
means to be paid to Christ. The controversy on this subject,
between him and Socinus, was held on March 14, in the year
1584, in the palace of Christopher Paulicovius. The primary
argument of Frankenius was as follows‘; “ As great as is
the distance between the Creator and the creature, so great
should be the difference between the honour which is paid to
the Creator and that which is given to the creature; but
‘between the Creator and the creature there is the greatest
difference, whether you regard His nature and essence, or
His dignity and excellence; therefore there ought to be also
the greatest difference between the honour of God and that
of the creature. The honour, however, which is pre-eminently
due to God, is religious adoration ; therefore this ought not to
be given to the creature, and consequently not to Christ, for
Him you confess to be a mere created being.” Now, what
says Socinus to this argument? His answer is as follows";
“ Although there is the greatest distance between God and
the creature, it yet does not follow that there is so great a
difference between the honour of God and that of the crea-
ture; for God is able to communicate His honour to whom
He will, especially to Christ, who is worthy of such honour,
and whom, not without the weightiest reasons, we are com-
manded in the holy Scriptures to adore.” This surely is a
ridiculous answer, and clearly is open to the charge of begging
the whole question’. For this was the very question between '
ἀρχῇ peti-
tlone.
Socinus and his opponent; whether divine worship can be com-
municated to Christ, if He be a mere creature? Frankenius
proyes, that it cannot by this argument—that between God
and the creature, and accordingly between the honour due to
the one and that due to the other, there cannot but be an
infinite distance. Besides, God cannot communicate divine
worship to any one to whom He does not also give divine
nature and excellence (of which no creature is capable).
Indeed such a thing would be manifestly repugnant both to
the wisdom and the truth of God; to His wisdom, because
* Disp. on Adorat. of Christ with Frank. p. 4. [vol. ii. p. 767.]
« P. 6. [ibid. }
OHAP, VI.’
8 13, 14.-
[942] _
τοῦ ἐν
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[343]
298 3. From His being thus honoured for ever and ever.
God would thus confer an empty title without reality and
foundation ; and to His truth, because God would then oblige
His creature to a falsehood, that is to say, He would com-
mand him to ascribe divine dignity and excellence (for it is
in this that adoration really divine properly consists) to a
being in whom there neither is nor can be such an excellence.
Lastly, how a mere creature can be worthy of divine worship,
or what are those most weighty causes, for which it is com-
- manded in the holy Scriptures that Christ, who [according to
[944]
87
their view] is a mere man, is to be adored, none of the Soci-
nians will ever be able to explain. Therefore Socinus ’ had
nothing to say to Frankenius, when the latter had amply
proved, that divine worship was not communicable to any
creature, but this, “I can give an answer to all those testi-
monies which you adduce.” Upon which Frankenius says *,
“1 too shall be able to give a satisfactory answer to all your
passages, which inculcate the adoration of Christ.” At length
Socinus, vanquished indeed in argument, but wishing to
exhibit an unvanquished spirit, says; “1 am as sure of the
truth of my opinion, as I am certain that I hold this hat in
my hands.” Then Frankenius¥, smiling in ridicule, answers
him again; “This certainty of yours cannot be the rule of |
truth to me or to others ; for some one else will be found to
say, that he is absolutely persuaded from holy Scripture of the
truth of the opinion that is contradictory to yours.” So utterly
impossible is it, on the Socinian hypothesis, to maintain and
defend the divine worship and honour of Jesus Christ.
15. I come now to the third and last [of Crellius’s] dis-
tinctions, and derive from it my third argument, as follows ;
Whosoever along with God the Father is to be honoured
with divine worship, for ever and ever, is by nature God
equally with the Father; but Christ is to be honoured with
divine worship for ever and ever along with God the Father ;
therefore Christ is God. We proved the minor of this argu-
ment before, by the clearest testimonies of Scripture, when we
were treating of this third distinction ; and the truth of ‘the
major is plainly apparent, 1. from those passages of-Scripture
(and they are almost innumerable) in which the true God is
distinguished from the creatures, by this form of expression,
v P. 7. [ibid.] x P. 8, [ibid.] y P. 9. [ibid.]
Οὐ). That the ground of this worship is Christ’s work as Man. 299
that He is the only being to whom divine honour and glory omar. v1
is due for evermore. See Matth. vi. 13; Rom. i. 25, and pin
xi. 36, and xvi. 27; Gal. i. 5; Eph. iii. 21; Phil iv. 20;
1 Tim.i.17; 2 Tim. iv.18; Jude25. 2. From this invincible
reason; That there must necessarily be an eternal founda-
tion for an eternal worship. Now this eternal foundation
can be none other than this,—that He, who is to be thus
worshipped, is by nature God; therefore, &c. The founda-
tion of the divine worship, which is due to Jesus Christ,
according to the heretics, is His mediatorial office. Now, if
this were true, the plain and necessary consequence would
be, that the divine worship of the Lord Jesus would at last
come to an end; since the Scriptures expressly affirm, that
His mediatorial kingdom will at length cease, when the
last enemy, death, shall be conquered, that is, after the
resurrection and the final judgment, 1 Cor. xv. 24 and
following verses. Now, when the cause is taken away, the
effect goes with it. Thus much then for the first objection
of the heretics; let the impartial reader judge what they
have gained from it for their cause.
16. But there is yet another argument of our opponents,
on which they place the main defence of their heresy. They
say, that the question respecting the foundation of that
divine worship which is due to Jesus Christ, has been
decided in their favour by the most positive statement of
Scripture itself, which teaches both that the foundation of
the divine worship, due to Jesus Christ, is His royal or [840]
judicial power; and also, that that -power was conferred on
Him by the Father, because, or so far as, He is man; and
that both these points [as they allege] are manifest from
two passages compared with each other, namely, John v.
22, 23, “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath com-
mitted all judgment unto the Son, that all men should
honour the Son, even as they honour the Father;” and
the 27th verse of the same chapter, “And” (the Father)
“hath given Him authority to execute judgment also,
because He is the Son of man.” To these two passages
they add a third, Philipp. ii. 6 and following verses, wherein
the Apostle expressly teaches, that God had given to the
man Christ, who, after and because of His death, was exalted
800 . Chrysostom on the pninctuation of the text, John v. 27 ;
prmuimive unto the highest, a name which is above every name, that
TRADITION
OF THE
pee
CHU
1 lectionis.
| [346 |
at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, &c. But, how —
° utterly. valueless these passages of Scripture are to the cause
of the heretics (although they fill every other page of their
writings, and are repeated by them until they are hoarse),
will become very evident, after-I have investigated their true
‘and genuine meaning.
17. And first, with respect to St. John, v. 27, ‘ort which ©
depends the interpretation of verses 22, 23, of the same
chapter,) there are, and were of old, various opinions of
learned men about its meaning. In the first place, Chrysos-
tom” does not approve of the commonly received punctuation
of the text’, and considers that it is not altogether sense ;
since Christ did not receive His judicial power because
He was a man; for if He had received it on that ground,
the same power must have been to be given to all men.
He would, therefore, have the passage be punctuated thus;
“And He hath given Him authority to execute judgment
also :” so that this clause should terminate with a colon;
and then should follow, “ Because He is the Son of man,
marvel not at this; for the hour is coming,” &c.; and that
the sense should be as follows; “ Let not what I have said
of the power of giving eternal life, and of the power of
judgment, appear incredible unto you, because you see me to
be a man, for I am also the Son of God ;.as hereafter will be
manifest to you by the resurrection from the dead, which
Τ shall accomplish.” This punctuation of Chrysostom’s has
been approved, among the ancients, by Cyril and Theophy-
lact; and, among the moderns, by the very learned F. Junius.
Nor. indeed should it be hastily rejected; for the Syriac
translator, whose authority has always (and that justly) been
great among the learned, punctuated the clauses of the
passage just in the same way, interpreting the text thus;
“And He hath given Him authority to execute judgment
also. But, do not marvel at it, on account of His being the
Son of man,” &c.
18. In the second place, other commentators, retaining
the common punctuation, suppose that our Lord in these
words had in view the passage of Daniel vi. 13, 14, where
; ᾿ «-(Hom. xxxix. 3. vol. viii’ p. 280.]
other and generally received interpretations. 301
the prophet predicts, that power and @ kingdom will be
given to the Son of man by the Ancient of days; as if he
had said, “ Because He is Son of man, of whom Daniel
OHAP. vi.
8 16—20.
prophesied, it should come to pass, that to Him would be —
given the dominion and kingdom overall nations for ever.”
Thus did Cameron interpret the passage, and he seems to be
followed in part by Grotius. But this exposition is discounte-
nanced by the want of the article (as Erasmus observed) i in
the Greek, which runs, ὅτε vids ἀνθρώπου ἐστί, and not, ὅτι
6 υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐστί: as it certainly ought to have
been, if the words are to be understood of the Son of man,
emphatically so called.
19. In the third place, the great mass of theologians
explain this passage of the incarnation and humiliation’ of ' exinani-
the Son, thus; The Father gave Christ His judicial power,
because, for the salvation of mankind, He vouchsafed to
become the Son of man, that is, man; and, although He
was God, to take upon Himself human life, and expose
it to death for man’s salvation. Wherefore by that so
great humiliation of Himself, by which He was willing to
become man, and to die for men, He merited this great
exaltation to judicial power, in order that He, who was the
Saviour of all, might be the Judge of all. According to this
exposition, (which at any rate is highly probable,) Christ by
this expression describes that emptying of Himself (κένωσιν),
which is spoken of in Philipp. ii. 7, where the Apostle exhorts:
the faithful to humble-mindedness, by an argument drawn
from the example of Christ, who being in the form of God
(that is, being God), and so equal to God the Father in respect
of His nature, yet did not arrogate to Himself that equality
with God, did not carry Himself as God, did not make a
shew of it openly, being alien from ostentation and pomp;
but, of His own accord, lowered and humbled Himself, taking
on Him the form of a servant, and being made man, &c.;
and therefore to Him has been given by His Father a name
which is above every name, &c.; exactly as it is said in the
passage of John, that the authority of judging i is given to the
- Son, because He is the Son of man.
20. Lastly, Augustine and Bede so interpret the passage,
as that the meaning is; that the Father had transferred the
tione.
[347]
38
802 Maldonatus on John v. 32. Socinians allege Phil. ii. 6; _
primitive authority of judging the quick and the dead to the Son,
TRADITION ¢¢
ΟΕ THE
because He is the Son of man,” that is, because He bore
caTHoLic a character ἡ that was suited to discharge the office of a judge.
CHURCH.
perso-
nam.
[348]
This interpretation is confidently declared to be the true one
by the very learned Maldonatus, who also gives the same
exposition himself, on the 22d verse of the same chapter, only
in this fuller form ; ‘“‘ Now the Father is said to judge no man,
ποῦ that He really does not judge; for whatsoever one Person
does extra Seipsam, as theologians define, all the Persons do
together ; but, because He does not judge by assuming the
character of a judge, such as can be seen by mankind whom
he judges; can address them, and pass sentence upon them
_ verbally, in short, [because] He does not judge in external
ceremony and in judicial form, He is said to judge no one.
And in this sense the Son alone judges, because He alone is
man, such as it is fitting he should be who judges men?.
Therefore it is alleged as a reason why the Father has com-
mitted all judgment to the Son, that ‘He is Son of man.’ ”
You see, how variously this passage may be explained; now
whichever of these interpretations you choose, it is manifest
that it will not contribute’ any support to the cause of the
heretics. To say the truth, the text is too obscure, and has
somewhat too much of ambiguity, to warrant our concluding
anything certain from it.
21. With respect to the passage alleged from the Epistle
to the Philippians, it is not: true (as the heretics assume),
that it declares, that the Father gave divine authority over —
men to Christ considered as a mere man, after His death.
The very words of the passage teach the contrary, shewing
as they do, that He had existed in the form of God, and
so was equal to God, before He took upon Him the form
of a servant, that is, before He became man; and therefore
because for man’s salvation He endured to be made man,
and to shew Himself obedient to God the Father even to
the death upon the cross, [on this account} He obtained the
@ “The Father made His Word to are judged.”—(“ Pater. .”. . Verbum
become visible to all flesh, being also
incarnate, that He might become
manifest to all as their King. For
it was right that those that judg-
ment is passed upon should see their
judge, and know Him by whom they
suum visibile effecit omni fieri carni,
incarnatum et ipsum, ut in omnibus
manifestus fieret Rex eorum. -Etenim
ea que judicantur, oportebat videre
judicem, et scire hune a quo judican-
tur.”)—Ireneeus, iii. 9. [§ 1. p, 184.]
it shews that Christ existed as God before the Incarnation. 808
highest exaltation in the heavens, and also a name, which cuap. vi.
is above every name. ‘The certain truth of this answer de- Sa
pends upon our interpretation of the words ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ
ὑπάρχων (“being in the form of God”), and μορφὴν δούλου ᾿
λαβών (““ having taken the form of a servant”), and how true
and natural it is, will be readily perceived by any one, who
will impartially and attentively consider the words of St.Paul. [849]
For in this passage the Apostle evidently teaches two things ;
1. That our Saviour subsisted and was in the form of God,
before He assumed the form of a servant: nothing can be
clearer than this. For in this passage the Apostle notices,
and proposés as an example, the wonderful condescension of
our Saviour, in that, “ being in the form of God” (ἐν μορφῇ
Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων), He emptied [and humbled] Himself, by taking
“the form of a servant’ (μορφὴν δούλου). Now all conde- -
-scension necessarily supposes a more exalted state preceding,
from which the descent is made to the inferior condition..
2. That Christ took the formeof a servant at the time when
He became man. ‘This is very. plain from these words of the
Apostle; ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε, μορφὴν δούλου λαβὼν, ἐν ὀμοιώ-
ματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος (“ He emptied Himself, taking the
form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men’’) ;
which the old ,Latin translator thus correctly rendered ;
** Seipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens, in similitudine
hominum factus ;” here there is a continuous exposition, in
which each later clause of the sentence is subjoined to the
former immediately, without the intervention of any copu-
lative conjunction, and explains it. If you ask, How did
Christ empty [or humble] Himself? the Apostle answers, By
‘taking the form of a servant.” If again you ask, How did
Christ take the form of a servant? the answer follows at
once, By “being made in the likeness of men;” i.e. by
becoming man like to us men, sin excepted. Now from
this it is certainly made out', that our Saviour subsisted, ' efficitur.
and that in the form of God, before He assumed human
nature, and therein the form of a servant. That this may
appear still more clearly, two things must especially be
noticed. 1. It is to be observed, that the “ form of a servant,”
in this passage, by no means signifies a servile condition of
human life, as opposed to the state and circumstances of a 39
804 Exposition of Phil. ii. 6,7. ~
primitive Man that is free and his own master, as the heretics contend,
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[350]
1 vehe-
menter.
[351]
and as some Catholics have inconsiderately granted. For
“the form of aservant” is here plainly opposed to the ‘‘ form
of God.” Now, as compared with God, every created being
has the form of a servant, and is strictly bound in obedience
to God. Accordingly the Apostle, after saying that our
Saviour took the form of a servant, being made in the like-
ness of men, goes on to add, “ having been made obedient”
(γενόμενος ὑπήκοος), that is, to God the Father. This is
intimated in another place by the same Apostle, in Gal. iv. 4,
where, after stating, that God the Father in the fulness of
time sent forth His Son made of a woman, he immediately
adds, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον (“ made under the law”). © There-
fore our Lord then assumed the form of a servant, when He
took upon Himself created, that is, human nature, and in
that nature became obedient to God the Father. 2. We
must remark the elegant gradation in the Apostle’s words as
he describes the humiliation 6f Christ, which is kept entire
by the Catholic interpretation, but is obscured, nay wholly
destroyed , by the explanation of the heretics. Christ, says
the Apostle, emptied [or humbled] Himself, taking the form
of a servant. But this might have been said of Him, if He
had assumed the nature of angels, since the angels themselves
are God’s servants and ministers. Therefore the Apostle
subjoins, “ made in the likeness of men,” and accordingly
a little lower than the angels. Heb. ii. 9, compared with
‘ver. 16. It then follows, “and being found in fashion as a
man, He [emptied or] humbled Himself, and became obe-
dient,” &c. Not only did He, though He was God, take
human nature on Himself, but even in that nature humbled
and lowered Himself exceedingly *, becoming in all things
obedient to the Father, even unto death, and that the death of
the cross—a bloody, shameful and ignominious death. But
in order the more fully to understand the Apostle’s words,
which describe the state in which the Son of God existed
before His humiliation, we must repeat our former observation
—that the form of God, and the form of a servant, or the
likeness of men, are opposed to each other. As therefore
Christ was made in the likeness of men, so as Himself to be
very man; so also is He in the form of God, in such a sense
According to the Arians, He was always a servant. 80
as Himself to be very God. Moreover, from this very oppo- onar. vi.
sition between the form of God, and the form of a servant, ὃ ria
it may be certainly concluded in opposition to the Arians, that
the nature, in which the Son of God subsisted previous to His
incarnation, was not created. The Son of God indeed then at
length took the form of a servant, when He assumed a created
nature, being made in the likeness of men: before that He
in nowise existed in the form of a servant, but subsisted in
the form of God. But according to the Arians, who regarded
the Son of God as a creature, that’ Son was always, even ' ille.
before His incarnation, in the form of a servant ; since every
created being, even the most exalted, as I said just now, when
compared with God, has the form of a servant, and is strictly
bound to the service and obedience of God. From this then
it follows, that the Son of God, with respect to that more
excellent nature, in which He subsisted before his incarnation,
is equal to God His Father; as is also manifestly taught by
the Apostle in the words that follow. The reader should by
all means see what we have adduced in elucidation of this
passage from the primitive fathers, Hermas, Clement of
Rome, and Justin Martyr, in our Defence of the Nicene
Creed, ii. chap. 2. § 2, and chap. 3. § 4, and chap. 4. § 7.
From all this indeed it is at length clear, how altogether
in vain and to the ruin of their cause the Socinians have
appealed to this passage of the Apostle.
_ 22. But it may here be asked, how from our hypothesis,
which assumes that the Son is God of God, and so a partaker
of the same glory with God the Father before the foundation
of the world, it can be understood, that the divine government
was at length delivered up to Him after His passion and
resurrection ? I reply, it can be understood in three ways.
1st. In this manner, that the Son of God having finished the [852]
work of human redemption on earth, acquired for Himself
a divine power over men, and therefore a divine honour to be
paid to Him by men by a new and real title ; even the title of
Saviour and Redeemer. This subject is admirably explained
by our learned Jackson, in his Commentaries on the Creed, in
these words”; “ God the Father had remained as glorious as
> Commentaries on the Creed, book xi, chap.ii, 4. [Works, Oxford edition,
vol. x. pp. 17, 18.]
BULL.—J. 0, ©. ; x
‘PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
1 halluci-
natus est.
40
[808]
806 1. Dr. Jackson on the glory the Son acquired by the
now He is, although He had never created the world. For
the creation gave much, even all they had, to things created ;
it gave nothing to God, who was in being infinite; yet if God
had created nothing, the attribute of Creator could have had
no real ground, it had been no real attribute. In like manner,
suppose the Son’of God had never condescended to take our
nature upon Him, He had remained as glorious in His nature
and person as now He is; yet not glorified for or by this
title or attribute of ‘incarnation.’ Or suppose He had not
humbled Himself unto death, by taking the form of a servant
upon Him,” (in this one particular indeed the learned author
was in error’, in referring ‘ the form of a servant’ to the lowest
degree of Christ’s humiliation,) “ He had remained as glorious
in His nature and person, and in the attribute of incarnation,
as now He is; but without these glorious attributes of being
ouR LorD and REDEEMER, and of being the Fountain of grace
and salvation unto us. All these are real attributes, and
suppose a real ground or foundation; and that was, His
humbling Himself unto the death of the cross. Nor are these
attributes only real, but more glorious, both in respect of God
. the Father, who was pleased to give His only Son for us, and
2 sui juris,
in respect of God the Son, who was pleased to pay our ransom
by His humiliation, than the attribute of creation is. The
Son of God then, not the Son or Davin only, hath been
exalted since His death to be our Lord, by a new and real
title, by the title of REDEMPTION and SALVATION.”
23. This no doubt is what the Apostle meant to intimate
in the passage just cited from the Epistle to the Philippians, —
where he teaches, that Christ (who as Son of God, before He
became man, was in the form of God and equal to God the
Father) was after death so exalted by God the Father, that
all men are now bound of right to confess that He is Lord,
(see verse 11,) in respect, that is, of a new title, in that He
has redeemed the human race by His own precious blood, so
that they are now not their own’, but His servants, as bought
with a price. Compare 1 Cor. vi. 20, and vii. 22, 23, with
1 Pet. i. 19, but especially Rom. xiv.8,9. And the merit of
this title is in the Apocalypse expressed in glorious terms, and
that in more passages than one. In chap. v. 9, the four beasts
and four-and-twenty elders sing this new song to the Lamb of
Incarnation ; expressed in the Book of Revelations. 307
God; “Thou-art worthy to take the book, and to open the omap. v1.
seals thereof; for Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to
God by Thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and
people, and nation.” Then in verse 12, the chorus of angels
sings ; “ Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power,
and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory,
and blessing.” Here divine honour is given to the Son on the
ground of redemption; evidently in the same way as it is
ascribed in chap. iv. 11 to God the Father on the ground of
creation ; ‘‘Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and
honour and power; for Thou hast created all things, and for
Thy pleasure they are, and were created.” God the Father
is glorified for the work. of creation, not as if the Son was not
also to be glorified for the same reason, through whom all
’ things were made, John i.3; Col. i. 16; but because the
Father is the fountain of Godhead, from whom the Son
received both His nature and divine operations. God the Son
is glorified for the work of human redemption, not indeed as
if God the Father was not also to be glorified on the same
account ; (inasmuch as it was He who, out of His boundless
mercy to the human race, sent His Son into the world for
man’s salvation, John iii. 16;) but because the Son alone
took human nature upon Him, and in that nature became
obedient unto death, so that the work of human redemption
is ascribed in the Scriptures to the Son as if it were pecu-
liarly His.
24. Now from the fact, that the Son acquired through His
humiliation, by a just title and most merited right, divine
authority over men and [divine] honour, we may derive (as I
would observe in passing) a sure argument for His divinity in
the following way :
Whosoever has acquired a just title to divine authority over
men, and divine honours [from them], must necessarily be
God ;
But the Son has acquired divine authority over men by a
just title and most perfect right, mens :
Therefore, &e:
The minor premiss is acknowledged by the Seaditin: nor
have we to thank them for their concession, since it is most
clearly proved from the passages of Scripture just now
: Xx 2
§ 22. 94,
[864]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHUROH.
[355]
41
[356]
308 δοεϊηϊαη, interpretation quite inconsistent.
quoted, which shew that divine authority and honour are
justly due to the Son as our Redeemer no less than to the
Father as our Creator. And as regards the major, no one of
sound judgment can doubt its truth. For it is certain and
confessed even by our opponents, that no created being can
deserve, of con-dignity, that eternal glory and happiness,
whereof even the saints shall in the next world become par-
takers. How much more absurd, and not only so, but
dreadful even to say, that one who is a mere man can deserve
divine honours and obtain the very throne of God!
Imagine with Socinus, that Christ was nothing more than
man; how would you find such distinguished merit in His
obedience, [in that] when He was man, He was seen as one
among ordinary men, and underwent death, and that, God
so willing -it, the death of the cross? What illustrious
thing: did Christ do, which (if one is to believe ecclesiastical
history) His Apostle Peter did not alsodo? Could He then,
as man, have deserved by any suffering whatsoever of His
own the crown even of saints? Certainly not. For of the
sufferings of men universally the Apostle’s statement is true,
“ For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are
not. worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be
reyealed in us.”’ Rom. viii. 18. How much less then, sup-
posing He had been merely man, could Christ by His suffering
have merited divine honours for Himself! On the contrary, if
with the Apostle Paul you conceive the Son of God as having
EXISTED previously in the form of God, and so in respect of
His nature as equal to God the Father Himself, and afterwards _
as taking the form of a servant and being made man, and lastly
in this our nature obeying God the Father even unto death,
and that the death of the cross, then will His infinite conde-
scension, and therefore His infinite merit, at once shine out
most clearly. This however.by the way. The first and prin-
cipal cause for which a new divine authority, as it were, is in
Scripture ascribed after His death to the Son of God, who
before the foundation of the world was a partaker of divine
nature and honour with God the Father, is the fact, that, after
having accomplished the work of redemption, He acquired for
Himself a new title to such power. See what we have written
in our Defence of the Nicene Creed, ii. 3.15. [p. 126.]
2. The glory of Christ in His Resurrection and Ascension. 309
25. Secondly, this same [truth] may be understood of that
new and illustrious manifestation of the glory and divine
majesty of the Son of God, which after His resurrection and
ascension into heaven was made throughout almost the whole
world. While the Son lived on earth, He was found in fashion
as a man, even a mere man, and exhibited nothing greater
than [what belonged to] man, exceptthat in His miracles some
sparks of divine majesty occasionally gleamed forth through
the cloud of human flesh. But after His ascension into
heaven the glory of the Son was made illustrious in many
wonderful ways—by the Holy Ghost, whom He poured forth
upon the Apostles, by the stupendous miracles which the
Apostles wrought in His name, by the promulgation of His
Gospel throughout the world, they that believed in it being
baptized not only in the name of the Father, but also in that
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. This revelation of the
Son’s divine majesty was the more illustrious, because not
only during His sojourn among men in human flesh, but
CHAP. VL
§ 2426.
also during the ages that had passed before, His Godhead was |
either wholly unknown, or at any rate but dimly and obscurely
apprehended. On this point Tertullian has well written in
his treatise Against Praxeas, near the end*; “God was
pleased to give a new form of belief’, in such wise as that’ novare
Sacramen-
through the Son and the Spirit He should in a new way? be tum,
believed to be One, that God might now be openly known in
2 nove.
His own proper Names and Persons, who in times past * was? retro.
not understood, though preached by‘ the Son and the Spirit.” * per.
Justly, therefore, is it said that a new divine authority, as it
were, was given to the Son after His resurrection, inasmuch
as before that time His divine majesty and power was scarcely
_known to men, although as the Word of God, by whom all
things were made, He exercised along with God the Father a
divine authority over men from the creation of the world.
26. This is the very thing, unless my mind is wholly in
the dark, which the inspired author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews meant in chap. i. 1, 2,3; “God, who at sundry
times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the
© Sic Deus voluit novare sacramen- cognosceretur, qui et retro per Filium
tum, ut nove unus crederetur per Fi- et Spiritum preedicatus non intellige-
lium et Spiritum, ut coram jam Deus batur.—[e. ult.]
in suis propriis nominibus et personis
[357]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
[358]
1 potentis-
simo suo
Verbo.
310 New title to glory and authority acquired
fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto
us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, -
by whom also He made the worlds ; who being the brightness
of His glory, and the expressimage of His person, and uphold- |
ing all things by the word of His power, when He had by
Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the
Majesty on high.” In these words the sacred writer expresses,
not obscurely, both the new manifestation, and the new title
of the Son’s divine authority ; the new manifestation in verse 2,
where he shews that the Son at length in the last times had
manifested Himself in the flesh, and, after completing the work
of man’s redemption in that flesh, had been appointed heir.
and Lord of all by a decree promulgated of the Father; not,
however, that His authority took its beginning from that
time, since it is He, by whom God created the very world,
and who, (as immediately follows,) together with God the
Father, has since the creation of the world administered all
things by His own divine providence. Thus does Ignatius
also speak concerning the Son of God, in his Epistle to the
Magnesians 4; “ Who was with the Father before the worlds,
and in the end became manifest.” ΤῸ the same effect after
Ignatius, Justin in his Epistle to Diognetus*®; “ This is He
who was from the beginning, but was revealed afresh ;”” and,
ἐς This is He who was always, to-day accounted a Son.” In
another passage, the same Justin says‘; “ Saying that His
generation then took place to men from the time that the
knowledge of Him was about to be divulged.””? But the new
title is declared by the inspired author in verse 3, where he
teaches, that the Son of God, although He was the bright-
ness of His glory and the express image of the Father's
essence, [although also it is] He who administers all things
by His most powerful Word’, yet by Himself effected the
purging of our sins, that is, by assuming our flesh in which
He died for us; and, when that purging was accomplished,
ascended the throne of the Divine Majesty in the Highest,
as having merited that seat by the justest title. But there
49 ὃς πρὸ αἰώνων παρὰ Πατρὶ ἦν, καὶ f πότε γένεσιν αὐτοῦ λέγων γίνεσθαι
ἐν τέλει ἐφάνη.---». 33. [§ 6. p. 19.] τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐξότου ἡ γνῶσις αὐτοῦ
© οὗτος ὁ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ὁ καινὸς φανείς. ἔμελλε ylveoOouu.—Dial. cum Tryph.
+3 οὗτος ὁ ἀεὶ, σήμερον υἱὸς λογισθείς. p. 816, [8 88. p. 186.]
[8 11. p, 240.]
by the completion of the work of Redemption. 311
is a great emphasis in the words “having by Himself cmap. vr.
purged,” &c. (δ ἑαυτοῦ καθαρισμὸν ἐποίησε). For they S26
intimate that the Son of God, the brightness of the Father’s
glory, &c., did not appoint any other to be the minister
of this purging, but took to Himself human flesh into the
unity of His divine Person; and in that flesh offered up
Himself as a sacrifice for sins. With the same emphasis, in
another passage, God, or the Lord, is said to have purchased
the Church “with His own blood” (διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος),
Acts xx. 28, where the very ancient Alexandrine MS. reads,
διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, which is still more emphatic. But
the principal force of our interpretation lies in those words,
δι οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίησε, “ by whom also He made the
worlds ;”” which, as we have elsewhere fully and most clearly.
shewn £, must certainly be understood of the creation of the
world properly so called. This being laid down; it is clear
from this passage, that the Son of God existed indeed before 42
all worlds with God the Father, and that in the nature and
glory of the Father; that afterwards the whole universe
was created by Him, which thenceforth He ruled and go-
verned by His own Almighty bidding atid authority; that,
notwithstanding, this divine authority of the Son in a cer-
tain sense’ lay hidden until the last days of the Gospel, ? quasi.
‘and was then at length revealed, when the Son having [89]
assumed man’s nature, had humbled Himself even unto
death for the salvation of men; and thus had acquired for
Himself, as it were by a new and most righteous title, divine
authority over men.
27. And indeed that economy of the fea Persons of the
most holy Trinity appears to me an object of admiration ;
whereby each several Person has by a distinct title, as it
were, bound the human race particularly to His own divine
authority—that title having also a distinct revelation of each
Person’s authority corresponding to it. The Father we wor-
ship under the title of the Creator of this universe, who was
known-to men even from the very creation of the world; we
worship the Son under the title of our Redeemer and Saviour,
whose divine glory and authority was on this account only
revealed after He had accomplished upon earth the salvation
® See Judg. Cath. Church, v. 8. [p. 99.]
PRIMITIVE
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHURCH.
1 quem.
2 humili-
tate.
[360]
»
312 3. The glory resulting from Christ in His human
and redemption of mati. Lastly, we worship the Holy Spirit
under the title of the Comforter, Enlightener, and Sanctifier,
whose divine majesty accordingly shone forth more brightly
after His descent upon the Apostles and first Christians,
rendered so illustrious hy the most abundant bestowal of gifts
of every kind. For then indeed the Apostles, and that by
Christ’s command, baptized the nations in “the full and
united Trinity,” (to use Cyprian’s expression",) that is, in
the name of the Father, of. the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
This is the very thing which Tertullian meant, in his treatise
On Baptism, chap. 11, where, in giving a reason why Christ
did not baptize, he asks, “Into whom! should He baptize ὃ
Into repentance? To what purpose then had He a forerunner?
Into the remission of sins, which He gave by a word? Into
His own self? whom He concealed by His low estate’. Into
the Holy Ghost? who had not yet descended from the
Father. [Into the Church? which the Apostles had not yet —
established.”’] After this revelation, whereby the divine
nature is known in Its distinct Persons, all to whom that
revelation has been made are of right obliged, and by the
divine precept are bound to pay the same divine worship
and honour which they pay to the Father, to the Son also ;
whereas aforetime it was sufficient for the pious among the
people of God to worship and adore one God, the Parent of
all, without that distinct recognition of Persons. Hence
those expressions, that by the Gospel it is required, “ that
all men should honour the Son even as they honour the
Father,” John v. 23; and again, “ Whosoever denieth the
Son, the same hath not the Father,” 1 John ii, 23.
28. There remains the third mode in which a new divine
authority, as it were, is in the Scriptures attributed to the
Son of God, [who was] before the worlds God of God the
Father. It is this; the Son of God after His resurrection
was truly and properly exalted and elevated to the right
hand of the Father, in that assumed nature of man, in which —
He humbled for emptied] Himself, and in which He was
» In plena et adunata Trinitate— dabat? in semet ipsum; quem humi-
Epistle to Jubaianus on the Baptism _litate celabat? in Spiritum Sanctum,
. of Heretics, [p. 135. ] qui nondum a Patre descenderat? [in
i In quem tingeret? in posniten- cclesiam? quam nondum apostoli
diam? quo ergo illi preecursorem? in struxerant,| &c. [p. 228.]
peecatorum remissionem, quam verbo
nature being placed at the right hand of the Father. 818
obedient to the Father, even to the death of the cross. Now
whatever accrued to human nature, in His humiliation and
in His exaltation alike, is in the Scriptures justly attributed to
the Son of God also, by reason of the “supreme and most
intimate communion of the same” (ἄκρᾳ καὶ ἀνυπερβλήτῳ
κοινωνίᾳ, as Origen * expresses the hypostatic union) “ with
ΟΠ the divine Person of the Son of God.” Thus He, who was
in the form of God, and equal to God, is said to have become
obedient even to the death of the cross; He who is the
brightness of the Father’s glory, and by whose almighty
command and authority all things were administered, is said
by Himself to have purged our sins; He who is “‘ the Prince
of life!” is said to have been slain, Acts iii. 15. He who is
“‘the Lord of glory ™,” is said to have been crucified, 1 Cor.
11. 8. So on the other hand, God (that is, the Son) is said by
Paul to be “ received up into glory”,” 1 Tim. iii. 16; that is,
in that flesh in which He was manifested’. And to this the
Saviour’s words, as it seems to me, are to be referred, in the
prayer which He poured forth to the Father just before His
death, John xvi. 4, 5; “1 have glorified Thee on the earth:
I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do. And
now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own self with the
glory which I had with Thee before the world was.’ Christ
asks, that is, that the glory which the divine nature had
always had with the Father, even before the world was, might
now be communicated to the human nature also, not only
by raising it from the dead, and exalting it into heaven, but by
setting it at the Father’s right hand, where the Divine Nature
had ever been. In vain, however, do heretics attempt to take
away the force of this passage, by interpreting it of the divine
predestination, as their fathers did aforetime®. For they
cannot establish such an interpretation by any sufficiently
apt example from the holy Scriptures. Their pretence that
a similar mode of expression is found in 2 Tim. i. 9, where
the Apostle speaking of believers says, “‘ that grace was given
to them before the world began,” is entirely without founda-
tion. We will produce the very words of the whole pas-
* Contra Celsum, lib. vi. p. 309. Ὁ ἀναλαμβάνεσθαι ἐν δόξῃ.
[c. 48. p. 670.] ° See Novatian on the Trinity,
_ | ὃ ἀρχηγὸς τῆς ζωῆς. [c. 17.]
™ Κύριος τῆς δόξης. ὃ
CHAP. VI.
8 27, 28.
[361]
1 ἐφανε-
ρώθη."
314 The glory which Christ had before the world.
primitive Sage?; “ Who hath saved us and called us with an holy
TRADITION
OF THE
CATHOLIO
CHUROH.
43
[362]
calling, not according to our works, but according to His
own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus
before the world began.” How vast is the difference between
this passage, and that of which we are treating! For in the
first place, the Apostle does not simply say, κατὰ χάριν δοθεῖ-
σαν, “according to the grace which was given;” but, κατὰ
πρόθεσιν καὶ χάριν δοθεῖσαν, “according to the purpose and
grace which was given.” Which words either contain the
figure hendiadys, as it is called ; “ purpose and grace” mean-
ing “ gracious purpose ; (as afterwards in the tenth verse,
“life and immortality” mean “immortal life ;”) or at least
they clearly bear the following sense: “ According to the
grace, which God purposed or decreed to give us, in Christ,
before the world began.” Then, secondly, Christ does not
say, “the glory Thou gavest Me before the world was,”
but, “the glory which 7 had with Thee,” &c. And one
who cannot see a difference between these two statements,
can see little indeed. For, (considering the certainty of that
purpose, whereby God decreed, that in ages to come the
faithful should have that grace in Christ,) that grace may be-
said to be even then given by God, although neither it nor
they actually existed, to possess then what was being given
to them. But “the verb ‘have’ has a possessive force, and
signifies actual and present enjoyment,” as has been rightly
observed here, by the right reverend the Bishop of Ely 4, in -
his Vindication of Passages of Scripture against the Racovian
Catechism, sect. xxiii. Lastly, in the words of Christ it is
said, “The glory which I had παρά σοι, with Thee,” that is,
existing together with Thyself. And it cannot be doubted,
that these words of Christ, “the glory which I had with
Thee before the world was,” have the same meaning with
John’s statement in the beginning of his Gospel, that “the
Word was in the beginning with God” (πρὸς Θεὸν), that is,
with the Father. In what sense the human nature of Christ,
P τοῦ σώσαντος ἡμᾶς καὶ καλέσαντος
κλήσει ἁγίᾳ οὐ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν,
ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν, καὶ χάριν τὴν
δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ πρὸ χρό-
νων αἰωνίων.
« [The work referred to is the
Increpatio Barjesu: sive polemice
assertiones locorum aliquot S. Scrip-
ture, ab imposturis. perversionum
in Catechesi Racoviana, written by
Matthew Wren, Bp. of Ely, and pub-
lished by his son. Lect. xxii. § 3.
p. 198. Lond. 1660.]
Conclusion. - 815
exalted in heaven, is a partaker of the divine glory and
honour, we have shewn in our Defence of the Nicene Creed,
li. 8. 15. [p. 126.]
29. Thus far have we treated of the worship of Jesus
Christ, and of the argument thence derived by Justin and
other fathers in proof of His Godhead. From the whole of
this, it is now, I think, clear enough, that the religious
scruple of those excellent men, which made them dread to
offer divine worship to a mere man, was not vain, childish,
and superstitious, (as it was deemed to be by that arrogant
despiser of the fathers, Zwicker,) but supported by the most
just, nay the most invincible, reasons; such as he and his
man-worshipping allies found it a much easier task to treat
with contempt than ever effectually to refute.
To the only God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
be ascribed worship and blessing, for ever and ever.
Amen.
CHAP VE.
§ 28, 29.
[868]
BRIEF ANIMADVERSIONS
ON
A TREATISE OF Mr. GILBERT CLERKE,
ENTITLED
ANTENICENISMUS,
SO FAR AS IT UNDERTAKES TO GIVE A SHORT ANSWER
TO
Dr. GEORGE BULL’S
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE: CREED.
a ' ε L ¥ aly ty
(ARM LOO THEE ILO all> 9: Rae
΄ Ω 3 ὃ +
i πάππε ἀπόμα ας ei, A ae παν TERA M
7. TRH O BHADIM GHP Ὁ ΠΟ tie
Sard. λ | ὰ = in ea ἫΝ j =a ἂν 4 :
BRIEF ANIMADVERSIONS τς [867]
IN REPLY TO
A TREATISE BY GILBERT CLERKE.
ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE PREFACE.
In his preface the author gives a summary of his views,
‘ briefly indeed, but yet clearly, and with an apt enough
method which one vainly looks for in the treatise itself. At
the beginning of the preface, after observing, “ that all Trini-
tarians of whatever Church, whether Protestants or Papists,
confidently assert, and wish to have it thought that they
firmly believe, that all the fathers, from the very times of the
Apostles downwards, are on their side in the article of the
Trinity,” goes on immediately to add, “ The Unitarians
alone, who think with Socinus, frankly acknowledge, (such is
their openness and candour,) that the ancient writers do not
entirely agree with them; and that therefore they have
recourse to the holy Scriptures, as it were to a safe refuge.
Not the less, however, do they boast (and this is all they can
- fairly do) that the doctors who lived within the first three
centuries, held, that the Father alone, and no other, is that
supreme God, above whom there is no other God; and that
so far they were of the same opinion as themselves.” My
answer is, that the primitive doctors of the Church did always
distinctively ' call God the Father, as the Father, and as the} διακριτι-
head and fountain of the Godhead, the “ supreme” or “ most “**
high” God, nay even “the one” God, as we have ourselves
often observed in our former writings. But at the same time [368] "
we also remarked, that the same fathers did notwithstanding
uniformly acknowledge the true and complete’ divinity of ? solidam.
the Son of God. This has been most fully made clear in the
REPLY
TO
CLERKE.
[369]
320 The doctrine of Subordination declared in the Nicene Creed.
Defence of the Nicene Creed, book iv.; “On the Subordi-
nation of the Son to the Father, as to His Origin and Prin-
ciple ;” in the first and second chapters of which, I have
shewn at length that not only the Antenicene fathers, but all
those likewise that lived after the Council of Nice, nay even
the schoolmen themselves, acknowledged that subordination.
What is to be said of the fact that, in the Nicene Creed itself,
which was drawn up against the Arians, the same subor-
dination is declared openly enough? For thus the Confession
begins; “‘ We believe in one God the Father Almighty,” &c.
But there also immediately follows, “and in one Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God, God of God, Light of Light, ©
Very God of Very God,” &c. So that the author of Anie-
nicenismus betrays either his ignorance or his shamelessness,
when he writes as follows, in his 78th page; “I saw that
Dr. Bull in his fourth book on ‘The Subordination’ has
given up a considerable part of the question to us;” for in
that fourth book 1 have given up nothing which has-not been
always conceded by all Catholics; nothing which can at. all
further the cause either of the Socinians or even of the
Arians.. The first proposition of that book, upon which
depend the propositions that follow it, is this; “That decree
of the Council of Nice, in which it is laid down, that the Son
of God is ‘ God. of God’ (Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ), is confirmed by the
voice of. the Catholic doctors, both those who wrote before,
and those who wrote after that Council. For they all with
one accord taught, that the divine nature and perfections
belong to the Father and Son, not collaterally or co-ordinately, |
but subordinately; that is to say, that the Son has indeed -
the same divine nature in common with the Father, but
communicated by the Father; in such sense, that is, that
the Father alone hath the divine nature from’ Himself, in
other words, from no other; but the Son from the Father ;
consequently that the Father is the fountain, origin, and
_ principle of the divinity, which is in the Son.’ Let Mr.
Clerke and his friends allow, that the Son has the same
divine nature in common with the Father, and we Catholies
should have no further controversy with them.
2. Immediately afterwards in his preface he adds; “ More
over, from Eusebius, v. 28, and from others, they learnt that
-
Statements contained in the Preface: already answered. 321
a great, if not the greatest, number of the bishops in the
first two centuries taught that Christ, as to His essence, was
man only; and during those centuries it was allowable to
declare the simple truth in safety to the people who loved
the simple truth, and without having those horrible charges
of blasphemy fastened upon one, which the writers of a
later age unblushingly poured forth, with wicked zeal, not to
say dishonesty.” This most silly fable of the Artemonites
we haye refuted and exploded at length in our preceding
Treatise * against Daniel Zwicker, to which I refer the reader,
8. In the same preface again he had the effrontery to
write ; ‘“‘ They all with one accord deny, that there was any
Son of God in existence before the worlds, much less begotten
from everlasting ; nay with one voice they all profess to wage
an unceasing war against the primitive divines, even those
prior to the Council of Nice, who took their opinions respect-
ing the Son of God not out of the Scriptures, but out of their
own head and from the school of Plato, and thrust it upon the
people to believe, notwithstanding its inauspicious origin ; for
even at that early period the Church, decked out and furnished
with philosophic teachers, under their unfortunate assistance,
declined, as had been divinely predicted, from the simplicity
of the faith. Justin Martyr, who was imbued with the Pla-
tonic philosophy, prides himself on that circumstance, and
in his first and second Apologies contends that Plato had
learnt from Moses, that the whole universe was created and
formed by the Word of God. Those doctors indeed put on
Christ in‘such a way as not to divest themselves of Plato.”
I request the intelligent’ reader to observe the man’s effron-
tery and his remarkable shamelessness. He does not blush
to profess openly, that he and his party wage war, and that
an “ unceasing’” one, not only against the Catholic Church
of the present day, but also against the primitive divines.
He does not hesitate to attack* those holy men, of whom
also the greatest part sealed their belief in Christ with their
own blood, with the foulest reproaches, as if they had taken
their opinion of the Son of God out of their own head, and
the school of Plato, not out of the Scriptures, and had thrust
it upon the people to believe notwithstanding its inauspicious
origin. In other words, he makes those venerable persons to
BULL.—J. (. CO. Y
4.3.5:
1 disputa-
tione.
[370]
2 jugiter.
3 proscin-
dere.
REPLY
TO
CLERKE.
[871]
322 False representations as to the Fathers’ Arianizing ;
be blasphemous innovators and sacrilegious corrupters of the
Christian faith, and that too in its primary article. With
respect however to what he says about Platonism, and its
introduction into the Church by Justin Martyr, I have clearly
shewn how groundless it is, in my Dissertation against Zwicker,
to which reference has been already made.
4, After some intervening matter the author of the Ante-
hicenismus thus proceeds; “ But it was not all at once, that
the simple truth of Christ was so foully depraved. For
according to the observation of the Unitarians, it is clear
from undoubted testimonies of the fathers, that the views of
the Antenicene doctors were entirely Arian or very near to
the Arian, certainly nearer to the error which Arius ran into,
than to the opinions of the schoolmen, or, which is pretty
much the same thing, to the decretory articles of the homo-
ousian party of the present day.” I ask, what is it, that
the Unitarians have observed to be so clear from the un-
doubted testimony of the fathers? Is it, that the views of
the Antenicene writers are entirely Arian? He does not
venture himself to stand to this assertion, and therefore adds,
“or very near to the Arian;” nay he is still in doubt, and
subjoins, “certainly nearer to the error of Arius than to the
opinions of the schoolmen,” &c. I, however, affirm, that
it is clear from undoubted testimonies of the Antenicene
doctors, that their views were neither the Arian, nor like to
the Arian, but quite contrary to the Arian view. For they
all acknowledged that the Son is of one substance [with the
Father], which is diametrically opposed to the Arian hypo-
thesis. This we have clearly shewn in our Defence of the
Nicene Creed. This was acknowledged by Petavius himself,
from whose instructions the Unitarians have learnt to frame
this calumny against the primitive fathers. But the author
of the Anienicenismus was taught by Curcelleus to say in
objection to this, that the ancient doctors, who acknowledged
the consubstantiality of the Son, that is, that the Son is of
the same substance with God the Father, meant nothing else,
than that the essence of the Father and the Son was speci-
fically the same.
To this I reply; What if the case were so? still it would
by no means follow, that the views of the Antenicene fathers
what their views really were of the Trinity. 323
were entirely Arian, or like to the Arian. For with respect 88, 4.
to the specific unity of the Persons in the Most Holy Trinity,
-such union as is that of individuals ‘ or persons among created ! supposi-
things, (for instance, that of three men, Peter, Paul, and John, prem,
who are mutually separate from one another, and do not at
all depend on one another, so far as their essence is con-
cerned, [of such an union I say, |) the primitive doctors of the
Church never even dreamt. The union of the divine Per-
sons, which they acknowledged, was a far different one,
of such a kind, indeed, that no instance and no similitude,
suitable in every way? to illustrate it, can be found among ? usque-
created things. They explain the matter thus; that God the Ji"
Father is, as I have already said, the head and fountain of
the Godhead, from whom the Son and the Holy Spirit are [372]
derived ; but yet in such wise derived, as not at all to become
separate from the Father’s Person, but to be in the Father
and the Father in Them, by a certain “ circumincession *” [or, * περιχώ-
mutual inexistence|, as they call it: on this subject we have ΚἾ 5"
treated fully in our Defence of the Nicene Creed, iv. 4. 9.
[p. 641.] From this cireumincession Petavius himself main-
tains, that numerical unity can be established. See his
work, On the Trinity, iv. 16. It is at any rate clear, that
this explanation cannot by any means be made consistent
with the Arian hypothesis ; it is also clear, that by the same
explanation Tritheism is excluded, and the unity of the
Godhead is maintained, without the real distinction of Persons
being impaired *, This was observed by the synod assembled “ salva.
at Rome under Dionysius, bishop of that city, in the case of
the Alexandrian Dionysius, against whom certain of the
Pentapolitans had brought the charge of denying the consub-
stantiality of the Son of God. For the fathers at that Council,
after severely censuring those who introduced Tritheism by
cutting and dividing the holy unity’ into three independent " ἡ τὴν ἁγίαν
hypostases, quite separated mutually from one another, imme- ney
diately subjoin*; “ For the divine Word must needs be one ®**-
with the God of all and the Holy Ghost must needs repose
and habitate in Ged and further, thus the Divine Trinity
must be gathered up and brought together into One, as into a
a [Athanas. de Decret. Syn. Nic. 26. the Nicene Creed, book ἢ ἢν 11.76 2
vol. i. p. 231; cited in the Defence of p. 808,1
ἐπ
‘
REPLY
TO
CLERKE,
[373]
324 The Eternity of the Son held by the Nicene Fathers.
point,—the God (I mean) of all, the Almighty.” This expla-
nation was always deemed an orthodox one m the Church of
Christ down to the times of Damascene, who in his third
book, On the Orthodox Faith, chap. 5, thus writes respecting
the divine Persons’; “ We know that They cannot go forth.
from, or be set apart from Each Other, and that They are
_ united and mutually contained, without being confused, One
in the Other ; and [that They are] united without being con-
fused,—for They are Three, although They be united,—and
distinguished without interval. For although each [Persou}
subsists by Himself, that is, is a perfect hypostasis, and has
His own peculiar property, in other words, His mode of
existence, different [from that of the Others] ; yet They are
united both in Their essence and in Their natural properties ;
and, in that They are not removed by an interval, nor go out
from the Father’s hypostasis, They both are, and are said to
be, also, one God only.” That this circumincession is @
great mystery, religiously to be adored rather than curiously
pried into, I have warned the reader at the very end of my
Defence of the Nicene Creed :—that warning, I would have
him read again and again, and especially keep ever in mind
the golden words of the very learned Athenagoras, with which
that book concludes.
5. But strange indeed is what the author of the Aries
nicenismus asserts, in a subsequent part of his preface;
“ The Nicene fathers,” he says, “lay down that the Son is
begotten of the Father’s essence, (begotten, I say, not made;)
and begotten before all worlds, but yet not co-eternal with
the Father.’ But it is manifest that the Nicene fathers
acknowledged the co-eternity of the Son, from the anathema
appended to their creed, in which they condemn such as said
of the Son, ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, “ There was once [a time],
when He was not.” For if the Son is not co-eternal with
His Father, the Arians were right in affirming, “there was
once [a time] when He was not.” Presently he says of the
same fathers, that they made the Son to be “ of the same
essence with the Father, but by no means co-equal with
Him.” ‘This is absurd; for if the Son be of the same essence
ΠΡ [P. 210; cited ibid. book iv. chap. 4. 8 12, p. 648, note Κ]
The principal objection alleged by Clerke. 825°
with the Father, He must needs be equal to the Father, §4—«
κατὰ φύσιν, in His nature and essence, which is the only [374]
equality of the Son asserted by Catholics. See Def. Nic.
Creed, iv. 2.
ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE TREATISE ITSELF,
6. IN my examination of the preface I have cut away the
chief support of the treatise which follows, by meeting, that
is, the objection, which fills almost every page of the Ante-
nicenismus, and which the author everywhere opposes, like
the Gorgon’s head, to those testimonies of the Antenicene
doctors, which I had adduced in support of the Son’s consub-
stantiality and co-eternity. This objection is more plainly
stated, in. the Antenicenismus, p. 100, in these terms; “ If
I were to concede both points to the very learned Dr. Bull,
the consubstantiality and the co-eternity as well,—although
it would indeed be enough for the title of his work and his
Defence of the Council, (perhaps more than enough with
respect to the co-eternity,) still he could not be regarded as
having yet done enough for his cause; for whatever he pro-
fessed in the title-page of the book, it is clear that Dr. Bull
throughout directs his weapons against the Unitarians, so far
as they deny that Christ is the Most High God, possessing
numerically’ the same essence with the Father; a doctrine ' eandem
which if Dr. Bull did not believe, even he himself would not ae att
escape the charge of being a heretic from the Autotheists and
other Catholics: just as? he might be called a Semiarian ὅ by ἡ a
modum.
certain zealots, those, I mean, who believe that in no respect 3 audire
whatever can the slightest inferiority or relation of less‘ to agar to
greater be inferred [as existing] among the Persons from ‘ ἐξ τος ἢ
the order® [in which They stand]|.” In what sense the Ὦ
ancient Catholie doctors (with whom I hold) said, that God
the Father was the supreme God, distinctively °, without ° pane
impairing’ the true divinity of the Son of God; what they 7 salva.
believed to be the union of Persons in the Most Holy
Trinity, I have clearly and lucidly shewn. From the Auto- [875]
theists, as he calls them, it is manifest enough that I fear
nothing, for I have not shrunk from encountering them
openly, in my Defence ‘of the Nicene Creed, iv. 1. ὁ 7, 8.
νάϊ.
REPLY
TO
CLERKE.
’ laby-
rinthis.
2 κατακό-
pws.
[876]
526 Clerke’s distinction that words may be understood
[pp. 565, &c.] And as for zealots, who are in the habit of
rashly determining about subjects which they do not under-
stand, I care not. Truth is what I have always loved before
all things, and sought with a sincere and unprejudiced
mind, (and, as I trust, by God’s grace have found,) not in
the mazes’ of schoolmen, nor in the systems of moderns,
(although I have never wholly made light of the labours
either of the one or the other, but have always thought they
might be read with advantage,) but in the Holy Scriptures, -
-understood—to use the expression of Vincentius of Lerins “—
according to the rule of the ecclesiastical and the Catholic
sense. But of this I have said more than enough’. |
7. It would be tedious to unravel all the tricks, arts, and
shiftings of this author. We will briefly note a few of the
chief. He has invented a distinction between the “ intense ”
and the ‘f remiss” sense of words ; and he applies it to evade
the force of certain very clear testimonies of the ancients
which I had adduced. Thus, for instance, on the striking
passage of Clement of Alexandria, in his Exhortation, p. 68 ἃ;
“The divine Word, who truly is the most manifest God,
made equal to the Lord of all, because He was His Son, and
[because] the Word was in God.” He says, “The force of
the argument lies in the word ἐξισωθεὶς, made equal.” And
then answers, p. 94; “ First in a general way, there is no
necessity that this should be understood of an absolute equa-
lity in all respects; ὁ. 6. in an intense sense, such as the Athana-
sian dogma requires.” But what does the sophist mean by
the words, “an absolute equality in all respects” ? Does he
mean an equality even in respect of origin? But such an
equality the doctrine of Athanasius does not require. For
neither Athanasius nor any other of the ancients ever denied
the pre-eminence of God the Father, as He is the Father,
and the origin and fountain of the Godhead. His answer ©
therefore, in the next. page, to this testimony of Clement’s, is
absurd; ‘‘ Clement expressly distinguishes the Word from
the Father, as the Lord of all; which words ascribe to the
Father a pre-eminence and a prerogative, even on the admis-
sion of Dr. Bull; that is, I assert, that the Son is not the
¢ Heres. 6. 2. ὅτι ἣν vids αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἣν ἐν TO
4 6 θεῖος λόγος, 6 φανερώτατος ὄντως Θεῷ. --ἰ[ο. 10. p. 86. See the Def. Nic.
Θεὸς, 6 τῷ δεσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων ἐξισωθεὶςγ, Creed, book ii. chap. 6. § 3. p. 184.]
in a. more intense or remiss sense ; exposed. 327
Supreme God.” Clement is treating of an equality of nature,
which he plainly teaches is an absolute equality. For he
says that the Word is “ most manifestly the true God °.” Now
is it possible to understand these words also in a remiss
sense? By what words, I ask, could Clement have expressed
more significantly “the intense sense’’? Clement however
proves, that the Word is most manifestly the true God, from
the fact that He is the Son of God and exists in God ;—
a reasoning the force of which manifestly lies in this, that
every son is of the same nature and essence with his father ;
and that whatsoever exists in God Himself must needs be God
Himself. But what does Mr. Clerke mean when he adds the
following words in the same place, p. 94? ‘“ Again, Dr, Bull
does not receive from his authors, but, either for the support
of his cause, or else through necessity, he puts on them ἡ [the '
view], that this equality must be understood in respect not of
_ person, but of divine nature, using a distinction which was
not invented till long after those authors were dead.” Does
he mean that no one before Clement taught that the Son of
God is of the same nature with God His Father, and there-
fore is equal to God the Father in respect of His nature, and
that the Son is at the same time in a-certain sense’ inferior
to God the Father, namely, as being the second Person,
having His origin from God the Father? But I have shewn
in my Def. Nic. Creed, iv. 2, that the fathers, who wrote
before the birth of Clement, and after him, did all teach both
these doctrines. What he afterwards subjoins as an answer
to this passage of Clement, p. 95, convicts him either of
impudence, or at any rate of the grossest carelessness in
reading my book; “ The reason,” he says, “that is assigned
by Clement, and adduced by Sandius, viz. ‘because He is
the Son of God, proves the same thing; for every son, as
such, is less than his father, nor would the Gentiles to whom
- Clement writes understand this reasoning in any other way ;
to which reasoning of Sandius Dr. Bull makes no reply.”
Nothing can be more untrue; for to this foolish objection
of Sandius I have given a log answer in my Defence of the
Nicene Creed, iv. 2. 4. [p. 579.]
© [Greek, “truly the most manifest God ;” see Def. Nic. Creed, p. 184. note ".]
§ 6,7. -
ad eos
ert.
2 aliqua
tenus,
[377]
REPLY
TO
CLERKE,
[378]
328 Clerke would alter the readings, without authority.
8. Since he is unable with any show of reason to apply
this distinction of an intense and a remiss sense to shake the
force of any testimony which I have adduced, he has recourse
to a desperate expedient, that of altering the text of the
author, without the sanction of any printed edition or MS.
Thus, for example, on that remarkable passage of Clement,
Pedag. iii. 7, which I quoted in my Defence of the Nicene
Creed, ii. 6. 4.f [p. 186]; “ For he that hath THz ALMIGHTY
GoD THE WokrD, is in need of nothing, and never is at any
time without supply of that which he wants; for the WorD
is a possession that needeth nothing, and the cause of all
abundance ;”’—to this passage of Clement, I say, the author
of the Antenicenismus makes this answer, p. 82; “The prin-
cipal passage quoted by Dr. Bull from Clement, is Pedag.
iii. 7, avevdens yap 6 τὸν παντοκράτορα Θεὸν λόγον ἔχων, &e.
Dr. B. p. [186]; ‘ For he that hath THE ALMIGHTY GOD THE
WokrpD, is in need of nothing,’ &c. This passage which Dr..
Bull has printed in capital letters might be set right by a
slight change, if, for instance, it were written in the genitive
case, τοῦ παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ. And, certainly, unless some
such error of the copyist be admitted, I should venture to
assert that that word (viz. ‘Almighty ᾽) had been shamelessly
foisted in by some impostor.” I reply, that that slight
change of the text could by no means be endured, not only
because it is not supported by the authority of any MS., but
also because that slight change would entirely take away the
force of the meaning of the author. The meaning of Clement
is evident, [viz.] that he, who has the Word, can be in want
of nothing, because that Word is the Almighty God, who can
do all things for His own, and, as Almighty God, is the
source of all abundance.
9. In the next place he asks me, with an appeal too to my
conscience, where I ever found that Christ is by any ancient
doctor called by the name of Almighty God? I reply, He
is called so by Tertullian, and that in the very passage which.
he himself afterwards points at, although he dares not quote
it at length, [the passage occurs in Tertullian’s treatise |
f ἀνενδεὴς yap ὃ τὸν παντοκράτορα ἀπορεῖ ποτε" κτῆσις γὰρ ὁ λόγος ἀνενδεὴς,
Θεὸν λόγον ἔχων, καὶ οὐδενὸς ὧν χρήζει καὶ εὐπορίας ἁπάσης atrios.—[p. 277.]
Christ called God Almighty by Tertullian. 829
Against Praxeas, c. 17%. “The names of the Father—God gs 7—10.
Almighty, the Most High, the Lord of Hosts, the King of
Israel, He that Is—inasmuch as the Scriptures so teach,
these we say belonged also to the Son, and that in these the
Son has come and in these has ever acted, and thus mani-
fested them in Himself unto men. ‘All things,’ He says,
‘that the Father hath, are Mine. ‘Then why not His names
also? When, therefore, you read Almighty God, and Most
High, and God of Hosts, and King of Israel, and He that Is,
consider whether by these the Son also be not indicated,
WHO IN His OWN RIGHT IS GOD ALMIGHTY, IN THAT HE IS THE
Worp or Gop Atmicuty.” These words of Tertullian the
author of the Antenicenismus, with his usual shamelessness,
. refers to Christ, p. 83, in that He is “exalted by the right
hand of God;” and is even bold enough to affirm, that from
this very passage “it is most clear that Tertullian, in his [879]
treatise Against Praxeas, (which Dr. Bull quotes in support
of the Consubstantiality,) did not believe, that Christ was
Almighty God.” Surely, Tertullian’s meaning in the passage.
cited is most manifest, [viz.] that Curist aS ΗΠ Is THE TRUE" ? genuinus.
SON OF GoD THE FaTuHER, and as He is His Word, (the Logos
existing in Him,) has all things which God the Father has,
and that therefore all the essential attributes of God the
Father belong to Him, and among them the attribute of
[being] God Almighty.
10. With the same confidence does he endeavour ἢ to elude
the clear passage of Irenzeus, Against Heresies, ii. 43‘; “ For
thou art not uncreated, O man; nor wast thou always co-
existent with God like His own* Word.” On which passage αι νὰ
he thus remarks; “ It would not appear unsuitable (if it τοῖο
necessary) to explain these words by understanding [‘ God’],
with which Irenzeus is accustomed to join ‘the Word’:
as if he should say: For thou art not uncreated, O man, as
᾿ God is, nor wast thou always co-existent with God, like His
nearest * Word.” But it is most evident, that both the ὅ proxi- .
clauses of this sentence of Ireneus, viz. “Thou art πού ὦ
uncreated,” as well as, “ nor wast thou always co-existent
8 [P. 510; cited in the Defence of h (TP. 86.]
the Nicene Creed, book ii. chap. 7. § 4. i fii. 25. 8. p. 153; cited Def. Nic.
p. 198, note *.] ~ Creed, ii. 5. ὃ 5. p. 167.]
REPLY
TO
CLERKEE.
[380]
ex.
330 Clerke keeps Bp. Bull’s arguments out of sight.
with God,” ought to be referred to the same Word of God.
Nay, if the former clause of the sentence, “thou art not
uncreated,” were blotted out, our cause would remain unhurt,
and the Word of God uncreated. That is to say; it would
be intimated with sufficient clearness, that He is not a made
or created being, in the following clause of the sentence,
“nor wast thou always co-existent with God like His Word.”
For these words unquestionably declare the co-eternal exist-
ence of the Word with God the Father, from which it neces-
sarily follows, that the Word must not by any means be.
classed amongst the things that are made by God, or created
beings, It is to be observed also, that Mr. Clerke follows
the corrupt and absurd reading of Erasmus and Gallasius,
putting proximum [nearest] instead of proprium [ His own], -
contrary to the authority of the majority of MSS. and those
the best. See the note of my very learned friend, Dr. Grabe,
upon this passage.
11. Moreover, we must observe, that Mr. Clerke in his
answers to the testimonies of the ancients, which I had quoted,
constantly keeps out of sight the principal arguments, by
which I confirm those testimonies; and sometimes even
brings forward afresh objections which I had clearly refuted,
as if I had passed them by altogether untouched, and that
designedly. Thus, for example, in p. 101, in reply to Justin’s
testimony respecting the Son’s consubstantiality, he sports
with the similitudes with which that excellent man endea-
vours to illustrate the subject, which no one in his senses
supposed to agree in every particular. But let the impartial
reader consult what we have said in the Defence of the
Nicene Creed, 11. 4. 4*, and he will see not only that Justin
really acknowledged the consubstantiality of the Son of God,
but also that the doctrine of the Son’s being produced οὔ"
the very essence and substance of God the Father, was a
doctrine which in Justin’s time was received, fixed, settled,
and confirmed in the Catholic Church: and that the heretics ἡ
of those times assailed that doctrine with the same cayils,
which the Arians and other heretics afterwards employed; ᾿
- and lastly, that the Catholics in Justin’s age met the
sophism with exactly the same reply, which the Catholic
k FP. 188,1
\
What Bull has written should itself be read. 331
doctors used in order to stop the mouths of the Arians, after
Arius had raised a controversy about the consubstantiality.
Thus to the objection, which in pp. 111—113 he raises,
from Tertullian’s. saying, that the Son is “a portion of the
divinity, that God the Father cannot be included in space and
is invisible, that the Son appeared in space, and is visible,”
‘ I have given a long and clear answer in Def. Nic. Creed,
ii. 7. 4, 5,! and iv. 3. 8, 9™: but the whole of this Mr. Clerke
passes over in silence. However, I can confidently appeal to
Mr. Clerke’s conscience whether he seriously believes, that
it was Tertullian’s real opinion, that God the Father and God
the Son are of a nature so different, as that the One is an
imperfect, and the Other a perfect, God; the One incapable
of being included in space, the Other not so; the One in His
own nature visible, the Other invisible? Such a supposition
is contradicted by the express testimonies of Tertullian, which
we have quoted in speaking of the Son’s consubstantiality,
Def. Nic. Creed, ii. 7. Once for all, I will say, that I have
one request to make of the candid reader, (and it is not an
unfair one,) that he will not hastily rely on Mr. Clerke’s asser-
tions in his answer to my book, before he shall have examined
the passages themselves, which he professes to answer.
12. In his answer to my work, Mr. Clerke treats subjects
in a confused and irregular manner, without observing any
order. I will briefly notice the chief points which remain, in
the order in which they occur. In p. 78, where he first
begins his treatise against me, you may read these words
of his; “ First, let us treat of Clement, whom Dr. Bull proves
to have been a Trinitarian from the circumstance of his call-
ing Christ ‘God,’ and ‘the great God ;’ as if the Unitarians
themselves did not acknowledge Christ to be ‘ God’ and even
‘the great God ;’ yea, in accordance with Rom. ix. 5, ‘ over
all God blessed for ever.’”’ That Clement of Alexandria
was a Trinitarian, I prove, not only from Christ’s being called
by him “God” and “the great God,” but from many other
exceedingly clear testimonies, which I adduced in Def. Nic.
Creed, 11. 6. One illustrious testimony I have already quoted,
and vindicated from Mr, Clerke’s frivolous cavils. But who
can read without indignation, what he says about himself
1 [P. 199.] m TP. 606.]
§ 10-12.
[381]
“REPLY
TO
CLERKE.
[882
1 urget.
2 κατ᾽
ἐξοχήν.
]
332- Of Clement’s saying ‘ the nature of the Son is most near —
and his Unitarian friends acknowledging Christ to be “God”
even the “great God,” yea, according to Rom. ix. 5, “ over
all God blessed for ever” ? which means, forsooth, that the
Unitarians acknowledge Christ to be God, but a created God,,.
such as to be a mere creature, that had no existence before
His birth of the Virgin. O great God! |
_ Again, in- the 79th and following pages, we have his ~
lengthy exposition, or rather perversion, of this noble passage
of St. Paul; to which exposition may be opposed what we
have written Def. Nic. Creed, ii. 5. 3", where we have shewn
that all the fathers, even the Antenicene, who have quoted
this passage, read and understood it in exactly the same
way in which it is read and understood by Catholics of the
present day. ee
~ 18. In page 84 he dwells* upon a passage of Clement’s,
Strom. vii. p. 702°, which Petavius had remarked on, and
I had myself examined, in Def. Nic. Creed?, ii. 6. 6, in which
it is said, that ἡ υἱοῦ φύσις τῷ μόνῳ. παντοκράτορι προσε-
χεστάτη, i.e. “the nature of the Son is most closely con-
joined with the alone Almighty ;” and to my observations on
the passage he thus replies; “ Dr. Bull, in order to evade the
force of the passage which has been cited, will have it that "
προσεχεστάτη means ‘most closely conjoined’ [conjunctis-
sima]|, rather than ‘ most near to’ [ propinguissima]; whatever
difference, however, this makes is in our favour; for the
more closely conjoined the Second Person is to the First,
so much more glorious are the titles, which He is capable
of receiving: but as the Second Person is not the First,
although most closely conjoined with Him, so therefore
neither is the Word ‘ Almighty God,’ although most closely
conjoined with Him.” In answer to this it might be said,
that “the Almighty” (ὁ παντοκράτωρ), in the passage in
question, denotes God the Father, who as being the fountain
of the Godhead is by way of pre-eminence’ called Almighty
God, by Clement and other ancient writers. But we allow,
[383] that the Word is not God the Father, although He is next to,
or most closely conjoined with, God the Father; nay, that
He is manifestly distinguished from God the Father, by the
very fact of His being said to be “next to” [ prowimus] or
oP, 162.7. ᾿ © [P. 8811 p {P. 187.) _
to that of the Father ; of the Son as Minister of the Father. 333
~ “most closely conjoined with” [conjunctissimus] God the ὃ 12—.
Father (for it does not much matter in which of these ways
προσεχεστάτη is rendered). Notwithstanding that the Logos,
as begotten of God the Almighty Father Himself, (the
perfect Word, born of the perfect Father, as Clement actually
says, in the Pedag. i. 6. p. 92%,) may be called and is
Almighty God, and is by Clement himself expressly called
so, as I have shewn clearly a little above. But Mr. Clerke
in his treatise often repeats and parades this passage of
Clement, and (following the guidance herein of Petavius)
infers from it, that this most learned father believed, with the
Arians, or at least with the Semiarians, that the nature of
the Son of God is indeed most near or most like to the
Father’s, but not the same with it. The impartial reader
however should consult and seriously weigh the passages of
Clement which I have produced in Def. Nic. Creed, 11. 6,
(and especially the remarkable doxology from the conclusion
of the Pedag. which I quote in § 4 of the said chapter,) and
then believe, if he can, that Clement did not acknowledge the
- consubstantiality of the Son. Would it not then have been
better if in the passage of Clement in question the word
φύσις were regarded as equivalent to personal subsistence ', * persona-
a sense in which Photius and Petavius himself have re- se
marked that it was used by other fathers also? See Def. Nic.
Creed, 11. 9. 11°.
14, In the same page Mr. Clerke observes, that the primi-
tive fathers “most frequently speak of the Son of God as
the Father’s minister, and as obedient to Him.” And shortly
afterwards he produces some passages, especially out of
Irenzeus, to that effect. In Def. Nic. Creed, ii. 5. 5, 6, 75,
however, I have replied to those passages at length, as they
were quoted by Petavius, in which reply I clearly shewed,
that in those passages Irenzeus says such things as are so far
from savouring of Arianism, that they quite overturn the
dogma of Arius. The impartial reader may examine what [984]
we have there said, and judge for himself. In the next page
but one Mr. Clerke brings forward a passage from Origen’s
‘sixth book against Celsus, p. 517), where Adamantius ’ says, ? ὁ ἧς Ori-
that “the Son of God, the Word, was the immediate Creator ὅ
ἃ [P. 113.1 τ [Ρ, 2861 5 (P 101] t [e. 60. p. 678.]
CLERKE.
1 per se.
[385]
334 Bull’s observations misrepresented by Clerke,
of the world, who Himself by Himself! framed the universe ;
whilst the Father of the Word was the primary Creator, by
reason of His having given commandment to His Son and
Word to make the world.” Now this passage also, which
Petavius had likewise quoted, I examined at length, and
clearly shewed that it contains nothing which other Catholic
fathers—whether Antenicene or Postnicene—have not said;
nothing which, when fairly interpreted, is inconsistent with
the rule of faith, even so far as it is delivered and explained
by the Nicene fathers. See Def. Nic. Creed, ii. 9. 10.
[p. 283. |
15. In the same page Mr. Clerke thus proceeds; “1 am
really obliged to Dr. Bull for supplying me with two irre-
fragable testimonies : first, from chap. 11 of Eusebius’s Pane-
gyric on Constantine, to this effect; “Eel yap....* For
inasmuch as it was not possible, that the fleeting substance
of bodies, and the nature of the rational creatures, but just
brought into being, should approach to the all-ruling God,
through the exceeding degree wherein they fall short of Him,
. being most widely distant and far removed from the
nature which is unbegotien ; with good reason the All-good and
God of the universe interposes a mean (Θεὸς τῶν ὅλων μέσην
twa), the Divine and Almighty power (παναλκῆ δύναμιν)
of His only-begotten Word, which has indeed the most perfect
and intimate intercourse possible with the Father .. . not-
withstanding which He mercifully condescended, δὴ in a
certain manner conformed, and adapted Himself to those
that fall short of the Supreme.’ No doubt there is a distance
between even the Word and the Supreme, though not a great
one. But what does Dr. Bull say on this? He answers,
p- 892; ‘But Eusebius manifestly says, that the power of
the Word is a mean between God and the creatures, not
viewed in Itself, but on account:of that condescension of
which he is speaking.’”? But the sophist has given my
answer in an incomplete and mutilated form. For in the
Defence of the Nicene Creed, iii. 9.11, [p. 502,] upon this
passage of Eusebius 1 first observed as follows; “‘ But Euse-—
bius manifestly says, that the power of the Word is a mean
between God and the creatures, not viewed in Itself, but on
account of that condescension of which he is speaking. Nay,
as on Eusebius, and Alexander. 335
_ he expressly declares in this place, that the power of the
Word, even whilst lowering Itself thus, has a most perfect
and intimate intercourse with God the Father, and remaining
with Him enjoys His ineffable secrets; exactly in the same
8 14—16.
sense as Athanasius asserts, that the Word Himself does not ©
so condescend, but that He ever remains the unmixed splen-
dour of the Father.” Then, a little after, I add; “ But that
matter is put beyond all risk of controversy by the words of
Eusebius in the sixth chapter of this very Panegyric on Con-
stantine, where, after speculating somewhat subtlely on the
number three, he says that thereby is signified the Most Holy
Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, whose
nature is equal and alike uncreate and without all beginning.
His words are these ; ‘The number three (τριὰς) first exhi-
bited justice, introducing equality ; as having received begin-
ning, middle, and end equal; and these are an image of
the mystical and all-holy and sovereign Trinity; which
depending on the nature that is without beginning and inge-
nerate, has received the seeds and the proportions and the
causes of the being of all created things.’ . What, I ask, was
ever said by any Catholic more effectual or more express than
this, against Arius and the other Anti-trinitarians?” ~
16. The author of the Antenicenismus in p. 88, has the
following ; ‘‘ Dr. Bull quotes the words of Alexander himself,
under whom Arius was a presbyter, (which were also quoted
by Schlicting, On the Trinity, against Meisner, p. 144.) out
of Theodoret, i. 4; ‘They do not know, in their want of good
learning, that there must be a wide interval between the
Unbegotten Father and the things, both rational and irra-
tional, which were created by Him out of what was not;
intervening between which [is] an Only-begotten nature (ὧν
μεσιτεύουσα φύσις μονογενὴς), that of the Word of God,
which was begotten of the Father Himself wo Is, and by
which the Father made all things out of what was not.’
These words (as Dr. Bull says) require no comment.” Falsely
and shamelessly said, as usual! I did not say, that this passage
of Alexander needed no comment; nay, on the contrary I em-
ployed" a comment, that of one who best knew Alexander’s
meaning; even Alexander himself, who a little after writes
« Def. Nic. Creed, iii. 9. 11. [p. 504.]
[386]
. REPLY
TO
CLERKE,
[387]
886 Passages cited by Bull to prove his point, neglected.
thus ; “ ‘No one knoweth who the Father is but the Son,
and no one knoweth who the Son is but the Father; [of ]
Him we have learnt, that He is incapable of change or
alteration, even as the Father; a Son wanting nothing and
perfect, like unto the Father, inferior to Him only in [this,
that the Father is] unbegotten: for He is the most exact
and unvarying image of the Father.’ These words,” I said,.
are.so clear and distinct as to require no comment.”’ Add- ᾿
ing ; ‘‘ He who wrote them could not have meant to say, that
the Son of God intervenes ( βεονήδύξῳ) between God and the
creatures, in the same sense as Arius.”
Mr. Clerke then says, that I (for the sake of seeming to
say something) thought fit to take “‘ nature” for “ person”
in this passage. In a marginal note of my work, I did indeed ~
remark on that passage of.Alexander’s wherein he says,
“intervening between which is an Only-begotten nature, that —
of the Word of God,” as follows; “‘ He uses nature for person,
for he means nature in person, φύσιν ἐν ὑποστάσει, as he
had just before expressed himself. Valesius in loc.” You see
-the note is not my own, but the learned Valesius’, who also
confirmed his note by the words of Alexander himself, which
occur not far from the passage cited. The faithless man,
however, has concealed all this from his reader.
17. Mr. Clerke, in p. 90, appeals to a passage I had quoted*
from Eusebius’s Eccles. Hist, i. 2, where the historian, speak-
ing of the Angel, who was adored by Abraham, as God and
Judge, thus writes; Eé yap, &c. 1.6. “ For if all reason refuse
to allow, that the unbegotten and unchangeable essence of
the Almighty God should change into the form of man, or,
again, should deceive the eyes of the beholders with the [mere]
semblance of any created being, or yet that the Scriptures
should falsely invent such things; who else (if it be not
allowable to say that it was the First Cause of all things)
could be declared to be the God and Lord, who judgeth the
whole earth, and, being seen in human form, doeth judg- |
ment, but His pre-existent Word alone?” But here again
with his usual ingenuousness he passes by in complete silence
a second passage, which I had quoted in the same part of my
work from. Eusebius, by which I explain the meaning of
* Def. Nic. Creed, iv. 3. 12. [p. 615.]
The opinions of Eusebius, misrepresented. 337
Eusebius from Eusebius himself.” This other passage will
shew that Eusebius did not at all suppose that the Son of
God, who formerly appeared to the patriarchs in visible form,
is really of a nature alien from the Father, that is to’say,
finite and mutable, much less that by those appearances He
was actually changed. He frequently rejects such blasphemy
with abhorrence. Nay he expressly teaches, that the Word of
God, even after He had taken true manhood into the unity
of His Person, continued the same unchangeable, incompre-
hensible, and omnipresent God, in his Panegyric on Constan-
tine which is appended to his Ecclesiastical History, in the
14th chapter of which he thus writes’; “ And herein did
He minister to the Father’s counsels, Himself meanwhile
continuing immaterial, such as before this He had been with.
the Father; His substance not changed, nor His nature anni-
hilated ; nor yet confined by the bonds of the flesh; nor
again making His sojourn [only] there where the human
vessel [of His flesh] was, and unable to be present in other
places of the universe. For even at the very time when He
was conversant among men He was filling all things with
His presence; and was with the Father and was also in the
Father; and was taking care of all things at once, both things
in heaven and things in earth.’ Nor was there anything to
prevent Him, as us, from being present everywhere.”
18. Some things Mr. Clerke, it must be admitted, produces
out of the writings of Eusebius which are almost, or altoge-
_ ther, indefensible. But these are taken. from the books
which he sent out before the Nicene Council. Rightly
therefore and wisely has Valesius? remarked concerning the
calumniators of Eusebius; ‘They bring forward indeed some
passages of Eusebius, whereby to prove, that he was an
adherent of the Arian doctrine. But they make no difference
between the books which were composed by Eusebius before
the Council of Nice, and those which he wrote after that
Υ [καὶ ταῦτα ταῖς πατρικαῖς βουλαῖς
διηκονεῖτο, μένων αὐτὸς. πάλιν didos,
οἷος καὶ πρὸ τούτου παρὰ τῷ Πατρὶ ἦν'
οὔτι μεταβαλὼν τὴν οὐσίαν" οὐδ᾽ ἀφανι-
σθείσης τῆς αὐτοῦ φύσεως, οὐδέ γε τοῖς
τῆς σαρκὸς δεσμοῖς πεδηθείς᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὧδε
μὲν ἔνθα ἣν ἀνθρώπειον σκεῦος, τὰς δια-
τριβὰς ποιούμενος, ἐν ἑτέροις δὲ εἶναι
τοῦ παντὸς κεκωλυμένοΞε᾽ ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ
ἐν τῷ τότε καθ᾽ ὃν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐπολι-
BULL.—J. 0. 0.
τεὔύετο, TA πάντα ἐπλήρου, καὶ τῷ Πατρὶ
συνῆν" καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ γε ἦν, καὶ τῶν πάν-
των ἀθρόως ἐν τῷ τότε, τῶν TE κατ᾽
οὐρανὸν καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἐπεμέλετο"
οὐδαμῶς τῆς πανταχόσε παρουσίας, ὁμοί-
ὡς ἡμῖν droxdeiduevos.—Eusebius, de
Laud. Constan. ¢. 14. p. 761.]
= Valesius on the Life and Writings
of Eusebius.
CLERKE,
[389]
[390]
338 Clement of Alexandria teaches that the Godhead of the Son
Council: which, however, ought certainly to have been done,
in order to give a sure and fair judgment on the belief of
Eusebius. For what was written before the Council of Nice
ought not to be objected and imputed against him.” ;
19. After this Mr. Clerke treats again of Clement of
Alexandria, through several pages, torturing and wresting his
writings to elicit from them something which may make for
his cause: but in vain. Let the candid reader refer to what
we have adduced from Clement in the Defence of the Nicene
Creed, ii. 6, and he will be astonished at the boldness of this
man, in having presumed to call that most learned father
a patron of Arian or Semiarian doctrine. The single word,
προσεχεστάτη, “most closely conjoined,” took so complete
and full a hold of the imagination of this light-minded per-
son, that he could henceforward see nothing that was sound ~
in Clement or in other fathers. Yet if he had only read and |
seriously weighed the words, which immediately follow after
προσεχεστάτη in Clement, he would have understood that
the excellent father did not at all mean by that term to inti-
mate, that the Godhead of the Son was in anywise inferior
to that of the Father. ‘ This,” says Clement*, “is the
highest pre-eminence which ordains all things according to
the Father’s will and directs in the best way the universe, _
working all things with unwearied and inexhaustible power,
looking unto the hidden ideas through which It works. For ~
the Son of God never quits His own watch-tower; not being
divided nor severed, nor passing from place to place, but being .
everywhere at every time, and not contained anywhere. [He
is] all mind, all light of the Father, all eye, seeing all things,
hearing all things, knowing all things, by His power searching
out-the powers.” In these words He ascribed to the Son the
attributes of God, that are primary, essential, and incommuni-
cable to created beings,—unchangeableness, immensity, omni-
presence, omniscience. And would the sophist here thrust —
upon us his worn-out distinction about sense “intense” and
sense “‘remiss”? But who can conceive a “remiss” omni-
* [αὕτη ἡ μεγίστη ὑπεροχὴ, ἣ τὰ
πάντα διατάσσεται κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ
οὐ μεριζόμενος, οὐκ ἀποτεμνόμενος, οὐ
μεταβαίνων ἐκ τόπου εἷς τόπον, παντῇ
πατρὸς καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἄριστα οἱακίζει, ἄκα-
μάτῳ καὶ ἀτρύτῳ δυνάμει πάντα ἐργαζο-
μένη, δ ὧν ἐνεργεῖ τὰς ἀποκρύφους
ἐννοίας ἐπιβλεπούσα, οὐ γὰρ ἐξίσταταί
ποτε τῆς αὐτοῦ περιωπῆς ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ,
δὲ ὧν πάντοτε καὶ μηδαμῇ περιεχόμενος,
ὅλος νοῦς, ὅλος φῶς πατρῶον, ὅλος ὀφθαλ-
μὸς, πάντα ὁρῶν, πάντα ἀκούων, εἰδὼς
πάντα, δυνάμει τὰς δυνάμεις ἐρευνῶν. ----
Ῥ. 831.]
’
is not inferior to that of the Father. The Epistle to Diognetus. 339
science and a “remiss” omnipresence? Clement here abso-
lutely and simply affirms, that the Son of God is everywhere
present, contained in no place, that He sees all things, hears
all things, knows all things. What.room can there be here
for a remiss sense, without contradiction? For it would be
just as if you should say, the Son of God is incomprehensible
and contained in no place, but yet is circumscribed in a
᾿ς certain space; the Son of God is omnipresent, but from
a certain spot is absent; He sees all things, hears-all things,
knows all things, and yet there are some things, which He
does not see, nor hear, nor know. Besides this, it should espe-
cially be observed, that the Son of God is in this passage desig-
nated ὅλος νοῦς, ὅλος φῶς πατρῶον, “all mind, all light of the
Father ;” an expression which surely declares plainly enough,
that the Father’s Godhead is in the Son, and therefore that
the Godhead of the Father and of the Son is the same.
~ 20. In p. 102 Mr. Clerke deals with a passage which I had
cited out of the Epistle to Diognetus attributed to Justin
(which if it is not Justin’s, is certainly the production of a
Catholic writer who was at least. contemporary with: Justin).
“Dr. Bull,” he says, “ alleges from Justin’s Epistle to Diogne-
tus many magnificent statements concerning Christ, such for
instance as, ‘the stars obey Him,’ &c., for all of which Cle-
§ 18—20.
ment’s προσεχεστάτη is an abundant answer’.” Marvellous! ! abunde
᾿ What is there which,that mighty word προσεχεστάτη will not ἌΣ ἴδοι,
effect? If we produce a hundred passages from any primitive
father, testifying in the most significant terms the true divi-
nity of the Son, we shall gain nothing with Mr. Clerke.
That single word of Clement’s is an answer for them all, and
that an abundant one. If, however, we were to concede to
Mr. Clerke that. Clement’s word really means all that he
wishes, what has this to do with the author of the Epistle to
Diognetus? Must all the primitive fathers be explained by
that single word of Clement? But let the reader examine
the passage from the Epistle in question, as I have quoted it
in my Defence of the Nicene Creed, ii. 4. 7, [p. 146,| and he
will there see the true-divinity of the Son set forth by the
author in the clearest terms. [After quoting the passage,
- T remarked, that the author of 107 “‘ expressly denies that the
Word, or Son of God, is a minister (ὑπηρέτην), or creature,
Z2
[391]
REPLY
TO
CLERKE,
[392]
840 Justin Martyr ; his statements on the worship of
(for these two words are equivalent, as I have several times
observed, and as, indeed, is of itself evident enough ;) calling
Him incomprehensible, and the very Framer and Creator of
all things, on whose wil] depends, and by whose power is
upheld, the whole fabric of the universe, whether of heaven
or of earth; and to whom all creatures, of what rank soever,
are in subjection and obedience, as unto their Author, their
God, and their Lord. He saysalso that He was sent into this
world as a King by a King, as God by God; that is, in effect,
the Son, a King, [sent] by the Father, a King; the Son, God,
[sent] by the Father, God.” ΤῸ the point, however, which
I urge, namely, that the author expressly says, God the
Father sent His Son, οὐχ ws ὑπηρέτην, “ not as a minister,”
Mr. Clerke says, that the answer is most easy. Let us there-
fore hear what his answer is; “‘ The author means a minister
of such a sort as the angels, and as men who exercise govern-
ment on earth, &c.,'as he explains himself; not a servant in
menial servitude; for there is an interval great enough be-
tween an angel and the Son begotten of the Father’s essence.” _
No doubt of it; between an angel and the Son begotten of
the Father’s essence, the interval is great enough, so great
mdeed as is the interval between God and the creatures, that
is, an infinite one. For whatever is begotten of the very
essence of God, must needs be God. Hence the author of the
Hpistle, after saying that God the Father sent His Son “ not
as a minister,” goes on to say, that God the Father sent His
Son as the very Framer and Creator of all things, as a King
by a King, and in fine, as “‘ God.”
21. In our Defence of the Nicene Creed, ii. 4. 8°, we
adduced an illustrious passage of Justin respecting the wor-
ship and adoration of the Most Holy Trinity, God the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The passage is as follows;
“ We confess, indeed, that in respect of such supposed gods
we are atheists, but not in respect of the most true God, the
Father of righteousness and temperance and all other virtues,
in whom is no admixture of evil. But we worship and adore
both’ Him, and His Son, who came from Him (and_hath
- taught us [respecting] these things and [respecting] the host
of the other good angels, who follow Him, and are made like
bP. 148,]
the Holy Trinity, and of Angels, explained. 341
unto Him), and the prophetic Spirit, honouring them in 8 20, 21.
reason and truth’.” Now on this passage Mr. Clerke, in ©
pp- 104, 105 of his work, remarks as follows ; “ Justin appears
to combine the angels with the Holy Spirit in the third place,
very unbecomingly, if he had thought the Holy Spirit was
the Supreme God.” “Appears” perhaps to Mr. Clerke, as
_he also appeared to Bellarmine and other papists, (whose
cause he is himself here pleading,) although really he does
no such thing, as I clearly shewed in the Defence of the
Nicene Creed, where I quoted and fully explained this passage,
* and shall afterwards further prove. The sophist proceeds ;
“ Justin distinguishes the Father from the other Persons
under the designation of ‘the most true God,’ which Dr. Bull
overlooked asif it were of no account.” I reply, Justin indeed
puts God the Father in the first place, under the title of
“the most true God,’ inasmuch as He is the head and
principle of the Godhead; but he does not do this so as to
exclude the Son and the Holy Spirit from the verity of God-
head: nay, he includes Them by conjoining Them with God
the Father, as to be adored, together with Him, with divine
worship. For the words, “we worship and adore” (σεβόμεθα
καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν), are manifestly referred to all the three
Persons. In order that the meaning of this passage may be ;
made more plain, especial notice should be taken of the clear [393]
opposition which there is in it between “the supposed gods”
(τοὺς νομιζομένους θεοὺς), those that the Gentiles falsely
regarded and worshipped as gods, and the true God, whom
alone the Christians adored. Justin confesses that the Chris-
tians had nothing to do with the false gods, which the heathen
worshipped, and that in this sense might have been called
atheists; but that in reality they were not atheists, but on
the contrary most religious worshippers of the true God.
How does he prove this? We worship, he says, and adore
- with reason and truth, (é.e. with a reasonable and true
worship—without fleshly sacrifices,) God the Father, and His
Son, and the Holy Ghost. Now if either the Son or the
Holy Ghost were not truly God, surely, such a defence of the
Christians would have been a very lame one', since the * clumbis.
Christians themselves would have been involved in the same
© [Apol. i. 6. p. 47.]
REPLY
~ ΤῸ
OLERKE.
1 misellus,
2 prima-
rium.
[894]
3 intuitu
mentis.
342 Justin. The Holy Spirit worshipped and invoked as God: |
offence with which they charged the heathen, that is, of wor- 4
shipping as God that which really was not God. But strange
indeed is what follows in Mr. Clerke’s book. “ Dr. Bull,” he
says, “has enough to do to exculpate Justin from the invo-
cation of angels, when he himself invokes the Holy Ghost in
his public prayers, without any example or precept in Scrip-
ture, or in the practice of the ancient Church, at least in its
solemn assemblies.”’ What the trifler means by this, it is not
easy to divine. Does he mean that the invocation of angels
cannot be justly blamed by any one who himself invokes the
Holy Ghost? That this really was his meaning is clear from
the fact, that the unhappy* man a little after expressly affirms,
that the Holy Ghost is nothing else than “an angel of the
first class?’ We, however, sons of our holy mother the
Church of England, who acknowledge the divinity of the Holy
Ghost, do rightly invoke Him, not indeed altogether as sepa~ _
rate from the other Persons, but with relation to the Father
and the Son, whose Spirit He is. For in our Litany we pray
thus; “0 God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father
and the Son, have mercy upon us, miserable sinners.” And
some example of this invocation is not wanting in the holy
Scriptures. For St. Paul thus concludes his Second Epistle
to the Corinthians; “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost,
be with you all. Amen,” This, surely, is not merely “a
general wish” (as Mr. Clerke says), without any direction of
mind *, or pious elevation of heart to the Divine Persons (far
be it from us even to think such a thing of an Apostle, of
piety so exalted) ; but is undoubtedly a solemn prayer of the
Apostle to God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, that
They would grant to his Corinthians the blessings which He
asks for them; and therefore he concludes with the usual
seal of prayer, “Amen.” And this form of prayer is found
in the Liturgies of all Churches, even the most ancient.
Besides the threefold invocation of the Godhead, Kyrie
eleison, which all Liturgical writers refer to the Most Holy —
Trinity, is extremely ancient, and has been used from the
remotest antiquity in the Churches, in the Greek Churches
especially. See Cardinal Bona, Rer. Liturg. ii. 4. But why .
need [enlarge on this? Justin, in this very passage which we
the Angels were not “ worshipped” in the Catholic Church. 343
have before us, expressly ποτα; that the Catholic Christians § 21, 22.
in his own age in common’ worshipped and adored the Holy 1 commu-
Ghost also, as well as the Father and the Son. The same ™ δτ'
thing is attested by the Doxologies which were in use in the
Churches in the age next after the Apostles’, (which also ? τῆς πρώ-
Justin mentions,) for in them the Holy Ghost is conjoined ᾿ς, ΕΣ
with God the Father and the Son. See Defence of the Nicene
Creed, ii. 3. ὃ 6, 9,12. In harmony with these again is that
seraphic hymn, called Trisagion, which is wont to be chanted
at the celebration of the awful Mystery in all Churches
wherever Christianity extends. On this see Cardinal Bona,
Rer. Liturg. ii. 10. But now, can it be wrong’ to invoke ® nefas.
Him, and to implore in our prayers His mercy and aid, whom
we thus adore and glorify with God the Father and the [895]
Son?
22. After this Mr. Clerke censures me sharply for shouvdly
disturbing the order of the words in this passage of Justin,
’ by joining “the angels” with διδάξαντα, “hath taught us
[respecting ],” instead of with σεβόμεθα, “we worship.” I
answer, it is clear that the verbs σεβόμεθα and προσκυνοῦμεν,
“we worship and adore,” must not on any account be referred
to the host of the holy angels, by this irrefragable argument :
If those words be referred to the angels, it will follow, not
only that Justin approved of a religious worship of the
angels, (which yet no one in his senses can believe, who ever
read with care his Dialogue with Trypho,) but also, that the
Catholic @hurch of Christ in Justin’s day worshipped the
angels, and that with the [supreme] worship, which they call
latreia. For it is most evident that Justin is here pleading
the cause of Christians generally, and defending their religion
against the heathen. It is equally certain that the worship,
which he here treats of, is not of any kind‘ whatever, but, as 4 aliquali.
I have said, of that [highest degree of] worship called latreia,
such as the Catholic Church offers to God the Father, and
the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Now it is most absolutely
clear, that the religious worship of angels-was utterly unknown
in the Catholic Church of Christ, during the first three cen-
᾿ turies and more. You may read the extant writings of the
primitive doctors; you may read the most ancient Liturgies ; ἐμὰ μὰ
but ποὺ a syllable > will you find in them -about the religious quidem.
REPLY
TO
CLERKE,
[396]
1" ἡγεμο-
νικός,
344 Bull’s way of explaining the words vindicated.
worship of angels. It is the consentient voice of the primi--
tive Catholic Church, that God alone, the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost, is to be religiously worshipped and
adored.
23, It remains therefore that σεβόμεθα should be joined
with διδάξαντα, and that the mention of good angels in this
passage should have reference to what had been previously
said about bad angels. That this may more evidently appear, it
is to be observed, that the phrase here used is not, absolutely,
τὸν τῶν ἀγγέλων στρατὸν, “the host of the angels,” but τὸν
τῶν ἄλλων ἀγγέλων στρατὸν, “the host of the other angels,”
The word ἄλλων, at any rate, manifestly refers to some
“other” angels, of whom Justin had been previously speak-
ing. But he had just before said, that Christians had been
taught by their Master Christ to avoid bad angels or demons,
whom the heathen held tobe gods. Here he adds, that the
same Christ has. instructed us concerning the other angels.
But what has our Master taught us about these other angels? °
Surely, that they are good, and that in holiness indeed they
are made like unto their most Holy Creator, but nevertheless
are ἑπομένους, “ following [or attendant] spirits,” (a meta-
phor which, as I observed, was derived from the pedissequi, .
servants who are accustomed to follow behind their masters,)
and consequently were not themselves to be religiously wor-
shipped and adored. But what religious man can, without
horror, read the words of Mr. Clerke which immediately
follow? “Justin,” he says, “joins the Holy Spirit with
the angels, as if He were one of them and the chief’ among
them, as in truth He is, whatever Justin might have thought.”
He has here followed John Biddle, an English writer, whom
he defends in his Antenicenismus against Mr. Eastwick. It
is, however, unsuitable in this place, and indeed unnecessary,
to take any pains to refute this senseless and blasphemous
conceit, It is absolutely certain, that neither Justin, nor the
_ Catholic Christians of Justin’s age, accounted the Holy
Ghost to be an angel.
24. In p. 110 he passes to the objection [derived] from
the immensity and invisibility of God, which the primitive
doctors appeared to allow to the Father, but absolutely to
deny to the Son of God. “Let us hear,” says Mr. Clerke,
Bull’s arguments from the Economy vindicated. 845
“the untying of this Gordian knot, which may be stated in
a few words: viz. he unties the knot ‘by assumed appear-
ances, by a symbolical and economical presence.’ ‘The origin
of the Trinity, and the economy,’ are two all-powerful dis-
tinctions in the hands of our Trinitarians. In this passage,
however, Dr. Bull could not have recourse to the ‘ origin,’ or
beg the question ; he therefore takes refuge in the ‘ economy.’”’
’ T answer; Most shameless man! That distinction about the
economy is not a subterfuge, hastily invented by me or by
any other Trinitarian, nor do I take refuge in it from com-
pulsion, but because Iam called to it by the loud and distinct
voice of those very fathers who seemed to. deny the immen-
sity and invisibility of the Son of God. I devoted an entire
and pretty lengthy chapter to replying to the proposed objec-
tion, Defence of the Nicene Creed, iv. 3. 12. [p. 615.] The
substance of my reply is as follows; ‘ That, whenever those
doctors of the Church, who wrote before the rise of the Arian
heresy, argue, that it was not God the Father, but the Son,
who appeared under the Old Testament, and in the fulness
of time became incarnate, on the ground that the Father is
immeasurable, and is not included in space, and is invisible,
- so that He can be seen of none; they by no means meant to
deny, that the Son of God, equally with the Father, is in
His own nature immeasurable and invisible; but merely
intimated this, that all such appearances of God, and also the
Incarnation itself, had reference to the economy which the
Son of God undertook; which economy is by no means
suited to the Father, inasmuch as He had not His origin
from any beginning, and is indebted for His authorship to
none.” ‘That this was the actual meaning and view of those
ancients, I proved from these two circumstances; that in
many passages, in other parts of their works, they all allow,
that the Son of God, equally with God the Father, is in His
own nature indeed incomprehensible, omnipresent, and invi-
sible ; secondly, that some of them do actually in express
terms interpret these expressions of theirs in reference to the
economy. - What says Mr. Clerke to this? ‘The fathers,”
he says, “ were especially anxious to assert the prerogative
of the Father as the Supreme God, both in respect of
‘nature,’ and in respect of ‘attributes’ and ‘operations,’
§ 22—24.
[397]
846 On the Son, not the Father, appearing under the old
(for on all these points there was among the fathers an
‘intense’ sense and a ‘remiss’ sense as well,) so that they
thought that the immensity of Almighty God was superior
to and transcended the immensity of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost; (although perhaps not far;) but yet trans-
cended it to such a degree as that Almighty God neither
ascended nor descended, and so neither appeared nor could
appear in space,—not even under a figure’,—in the manner
in which the Son appeared.” This is a mere begging the
question. I have shewn by many, and those very clear testi-
monies, that those ancient doctors were of opinion that the
nature and essence of God the Father and of the Son was abso-
lutely the same, that their essential attributes were the same,
and consequently that the immensity and omnipresence and
invisibility of both were the same. Why does he give no
answer to these testimonies? Surely, because he could not
give any solid answer. It would be tedious to repeat all
those testimonies here: the reader may see them in the
third chapter of my fourth book On the Subordination of
_ the Son to the Father, &c. Two only I will here repeat.
The first of them is from Clement of Alexandria, Strom. vii.
p. 7024, which has been already partly quoted; “ ‘The Son
of God never quits His own watch-tower: not being divided
or severed, nor passing from place to place; but being every-
where at every time, and not contained anywhere. [He is]
all mind, all light of the Father, all eye, seeing all things,
hearing all things, knowing all things, by His power searching
[399]
out the powers. To Him the whole host of angels and of
gods is subject, [even] to the Word of the Father, who has
taken upon Himself the sacred dispensation, because of Him,
who has subjected [them to Him].? Observe, he clearly
teaches, that the Word, or Son of God, is not divided nor
severed, passes not from place to place, is always everywhere,
and nowhere contained. Nevertheless, he allows, that the Son
of God Himself undertook the sacred dispensation, which the
Father laid upon Him; that is to say, as well under the Old
Testament, when He appeared to the prophets and holy men,
having assumed either a human or other corporeal appear-
ance, as also especially under the New Testament, when,
͵
ἀ [Ρ, 881 ; cited in the Defence of the Nicene Creed, p. 605, note 17
dispensation. The Son omnipresent equally with the Father. 347
having taken very man into the unity of His Person, He con- § 24, 25.
versed with men upon earth.” The second testimony is from
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chap. 23, where he thus writes
on the passage of Matthew, chap. xvii. [5]|°; ‘ You have the
Son on earth, you have the Father in heaven; this [however]
is not a separation, but a divine arrangement. But we know,
that God is even in the bottomless depths, and exists every-
where, but [then it is] by power and authority ; that the Son
also, being indivisible [from Him], is everywhere with Him.
Nevertheless, in the economy itself, the Father willed that the
Son should be held’ on earth and Himself in heaven.” Here ' haberi.
he clearly teaches, that the Son of God is everywhere present
equally with God the Father, which he also proves by this
solid reason, that the Son is with His Father indivisible, and
cannot be separated from Him ; which reason all the Catholic
fathers, both Antenicene and Postnicene, admitted. They all
with one accord, profess that the Son is begotten of the
Father’s essence, without any section or division; and that
He was put forth’ from the Father in such wise as never to * Prolatum.
be separated from the Father. Now if the omnipresence of
God the Father be extended beyond the limits of the omni-
presence of the Son of God, (my absurd opponent compels
me to use absurd expressions myself,) then God the Father
would be where God the Son is not, and consequently the
Father and the Son would be separated from each other.
25. Mr. Clerke then says, that the ancient doctors were
of opinion, that it was not God the Father who of old appeared
to the patriarchs and other holy men, “ because they judged
that it could not have been consistent with the supreme and
abundant*® pre-eminence of His attributes—and that not on * profusa.
account of anything unbecoming [in it], as Dr. Bull says; |
nor because the Father is ‘ the fountain of the Trinity ;’ for
what has a fountain to do with local motion, except for the [400]
purpose of washing or drinking?” But, rejecting with abo-
mination all profane ribaldry‘, I answer, that those holy “ scom-
fathers were of a far different opinion; “for in their view, mate.
God the Father was never seen, nor could be seen of any
man, not even through assumed forms. He had not origi-
nated from any beginning, nor was He subject to any one;
ὁ [P. 513; cited in the Defence of the Nicene Creed, p. 606, note ‘.]
REPLY
TO
CLERKE.
1 deinceps.
2 ordo.
[401]
848 Athenagoras ; his statements on the Word not being “made;”
nor can He be said to have been sent by another, any more
than to have been begotten of another. On the contrary,
the Son of God, in that He is begotten of God the Father, on
that ground at least -is indebted to the Father for all His
authority ; as it is no less honourable to Him to be sent by
the Father, than to be begotten of the Father. He is of the
Father; through Him the Father created all things which
are in the world; moreover, through Him He afterwards’
revealed Himself to the world. In the Most Holy Trinity,
although there is no disparity of nature between the Father
and the Son, yet certainly a kind of order’ is there according |
to which the Father is the principle and head of the Son.
Which order would be inverted, if the administration of the
universe were effected by the Son through the Father.”
26. In p. 114 Mr. Clerke treats of Athenagoras, and of the
observations which I have made on Athenagoras; but his
treatment of the subject is here, as usual, so confused, that
I confess I do not know what, and indeed to what, I ought
to make reply. And in truth, the sophist in his confusion
seeks for ways of escape and places of concealment, in order
to hide himself from the blows of an adversary. I entreat .
the impartial reader to peruse what I have advanced from
Athenagoras in the Defence of the Nicene Creed, ii. 4. 9 ,
where I have clearly shewn, that this most learned father
did fully acknowledge the consubstantiality of the Son of
God, as well as of the Holy Ghost. To this Mr. Clerke does
not answer one syllable. Let [the reader] also peruse the tes-
timonies which I have produced from Athenagoras in support
of the eternity [of the Son], Defence of the Nicene Creed, iii.
5.28. Let us see what answer he makes to them; “ Dr. Bull,”
he says, “ quotes, p. 10%, πρῶτον γέννημα εἶναι τῷ Lari,
οὐχ ws γενόμενον, ‘ He is the First-offspring of the Father, not
as having been brought into being :’ here the words πρῶτον
γέννημα, ‘ First-offspring,’ are inconsistent with the co-eternity
in two ways, both as He is ‘the First,’ and also as He is
the ‘ begotten Son.’”? Now, who can have patience with a
-sophist, who has presumed to press the words of Athenagoras
in opposition to the Son’s eternity, when Athenagoras himself
expressly observes, that they are not in the least repugnant
f (P. 152.] s [P. 436.] h [ς, 10, p. 287.]
Bull’s observations on them vindicated. — 349
to His co-eternity? We declare, says Athenagoras, that the ¢ 25, 26. -
Word or Son of God is the first offspring of the Father, oby
ὡς γενόμενον, “not as having been brought into being.”
What does Mr. Clerke observe on this? ‘‘ For what purpose
then,” he asks, “ does Dr. Bull quote this passage ? No doubt
[he does so] for the sake of the words which follow—ovy os |
γενόμενον, ‘not as having been brought into being,’ in which
little clause, nearly the whole of his argument lies; the rest
being simply expository and put together to ward off the wea-
pons of opponents. But however much and often he boasts
of the force of this word [γενόμενον], all its force will be dissi-
pated by a gentle breath. I admit, that in this passage it
᾿ signifies ‘made,’ which Athenagoras denies in the case of
the Son; so far true; but afterwards Athenagoras explains
himself, viz. as speaking of such a making, as is that of
all the material things, and the angels, who (as Dr. Bull
remarks,) he says ‘were made’ (γενόμενους), p.27'. Athena-
goras therefore means, that the Word was not ‘made,’ ὁ. 6.
{not made] as the other creatures were, none of whom were
produced of the essence of God.” But what man of a sound
mind can suppose, that a most learned writer (such as Athena-
goras evidently was) was so utterly devoid of wisdom as to
think, that anything, which was produced’ of God’s own" genitum.
essence, could have been in any sense made, or a creature? It
is a certain axiom, that whatsoever is begotten of God, that
is, of God’s own essence, must necessarily be God. But the
meaning of Athenagoras in the words οὐχ ὡς γενόμενον [“ not [402]
as having been brought into being”’| is most manifestly this,
_ that the Word, or Son of God, when He proceeded forth from
God to create all things by His power, was not then made,
or had a beginning of His existence. And how does he prove
this? “For from the beginning,’ says he, ‘God, being
eternal mind, Himself had within Himself, His Logos [ Word,
or Reason], being eternally possessed of Reason’.” Here he 3 λογικός.
- deduces the eternal existence of the Word from His eternal
and necessary cause—even the Reason and Intellect of God.
For how absurd the sense which Mr. Clerke attaches to those
words (namely that the Word was virtually in God, in respect
of God’s essential Reason and Wisdom, as an attribute,
| fe. 24. -p. 808.]
REPLY
TO
OLERKF.
1 offendat.
[403]
2 quasi
editus est.
3 alibi.
4 μονο-
mpdowiros,
350 The two-fold generation or putting forth of the Son,
not as a distinct Person) is, I have shewn at length in my
Defence of the Nicene Creed, § 5 of the chapter above
quoted), to which I refer the reader.
27. In p. 117, Mr. Clerke, on the occasion of this passage
of Athenagoras, and my explanation of it, attacks me as fol-
lows; ‘ Dr. Bull was evidently compelled, I say compelled,
to make a two-fold ‘generation’ of the Son before the crea-
tion of the world, (a thing unheard of, and strange [even] to
those of his own opinion;) one, forsooth, properly so called,
from everlasting, wherewith to defend the opinion of modern
theologians ; the other a ‘figurative’ one, [which consisted]
in His being put forth a little before the creation of the
world, in ordér that he may not forsake the primitive fathers,
and run against* them one and all; of which two genera-
tions Dr. Bull must deservedly be considered the inventor.”
I answer ; if it were true, that I was the first to discover this
distinction, I should have no cause to feel either shame or
sorrow ; for it is of great value in laying open the meaning
of some ancient fathers, who have hitherto been thought,
even by learned men, to have favoured the Arian doctrine.
Besides, this distinction of the two-fold generation of the
Word or Son of God, before the foundation of the world,
throws light (and this is a consideration worthy of notice),
upon those passages of the ancient doctors, in which they
say, that the Son was begotten of God according to the
Father’s will, θελήσει et βουλῇ, “by His purpose and coun-
sel,’’— expressions which theologians have spent much useless
toil in reconciling with the Son’s eternal generation. Such
phrases no doubt must be understood of that second genera-
tion, less properly so called, by which the Word, when God
the Father willed, was as it were put forth from’ Him, and
went forth to create the universe. At the same time it is
certain, that all those fathers who used these expressions,
acknowledged another generation or putting forth of the Son,
properly so called, which was both eternal and necessary.
Indeed it is impossible (as I have in another place*® observed
after Athanasius) that God can rightly be conceived as One,
in such a sense as to he, or ever to have been, unipersonal’*;
since it must needs be, that God, who is eternal mind, should
i [P. 4411
in accordance with the primitive doctrine. 861
have in Himself, and with’ Himself, His Logos or Word, § 26—28.
and that, not’ such a one as the word of man, but living andi apna. _
subsisting ; which, by the very fact of being a living and
subsisting Word, is a Person; and, moreover, as being the
' Word of? God the Father, a divine Person distinct from the ? ex.
Father. That, in consideration of this eternal generation or
production, the Word might be called the Son of God, was
correctly observed by some ancient writers. Thus speaks
Tertullian *; “ Every origin is a parent, everything which is
produced ἜΦΗ an origin is an offspring *.”” With Tertullian * proge-
agrees Athanasius, in Oration V. against the Arians!; “ For Ea
if the Word be not of God, they might with reason have
denied that He is Son; but since He is of God, how is it they
do not see at once, that that which is from any one is the
son of that from which also it is?” (ὅτι τὸ ἔκ τινος ὑπάρχον
vids ἐστιν ἐκείνου, ἐξ οὗ καὶ ἐστίν) But my authorities for
the distinction in question were men of great eminence, Zeno
of Verona, the Emperor Constantine, the great Athanasius, [404]
Rupert [abbot] of Tu, nay the Nicene fathers themselves, as
I have fully and clearly shewn in the Defence of the Nicene
Creed, iii. 9. What [Mr. Clerke] brings forward successively
from Theophilus of Antioch, Novatian, and others, who make
the same statements as Athenagoras respecting the genera-
tion of the Son of God, receives a clear light from these
observations of ours on Athenagoras.
28. In p. 130, Mr. Clerke comes to the passage of Irenzeus,
ii. 49™, in which he attributes to Christ ignorance of the day
and hour of the last judgment; on which I have fully replied
in the Defence of the Nicene Creed, ii. 5. 8", where I allowed
indeed, that at first sight the words of Irenzus appeared to
attribute i ignorance to the Son of God, even considered most
properly as the Son of God. I here add, that the holy father,
carried away through an excessive reaction *, and a vehement ‘ ἐξ ἀμετρίας
zeal and eagerness to. oppose the Fibhagth deh cies Gnostics, which “@°""™
the best of men sometimes fall into, spoke with too little
caution. But that Irenzeus really supposed, that Christ,
considered as God, was ignorant of anything, will never come
k [Adv, Prax. cap. 8. p. 504. Def.
Nie. Creed, p. 446, note Ἀ] τ ἰρ, 28. 8. p. 158.]
Orat. iv. 15. vol. i. p.628, cited ib. ]
» [P. 174.]
REPLY
TO
CLERKE.
[405] -
ϑῦ Passages cited from Ireneus, vindicated.
into the mind of any one, who knows Irenzus,-and has atten-
tively read his writings. No one assuredly has asserted in
clearer terms than Irenzus the Son’s most absolute divinity,
equal to that of the Father. Moreover I have observed, that
he expressly, in that very chapter in which he ascribes this
ignorance to Christ, declares, “that the Spirit of the Saviour
which is in Him searches all things, even the deep things of
God.” Where, by the Spirit which is in the Saviour, I have
proved, from parallel passages of Irenzeus, that His Divine
Nature is denoted. But to no purpose is Mr. Clerke’s answer
on this point; ‘The words which Dr. Bull has quoted seem,
from the passages which Gallasius has cited in the _margin,
(viz. 1 Cor. ii. 10, and xu. 4,) manifestly to refer to the Holy
Spirit.” For these passages no doubt speak of the Holy
Ghost, the Third Person of the Godhead, who likewise searcheth
all things. But what is this to the purpose? The question
is, what Irenzeus meant here by “the Spirit of the Saviour,
which is in Him.” We contend that he meant the Divine
Nature in Christ, the Second Person of the Godhead, accord-
‘ing to a usage which was indeed not his own merely, but
that of other ancient doctors also, and even [found] in many
passages of Scripture, as I have elsewhere shewn®. The
reader however may see more observations of mine on this
passage of Irenzeus, in the chapter above quoted.
29. In p. 133 this very vain person plumes himself won-
derfully, and boasts of another passage of Irenzus which
I had not touched. “'To my gigantic argument,” says he, ᾿
‘* from Irenzeus, [derived] from the Son’s ‘dominion’ over
the Holy Ghost, Dr. Bull makes no answer; probably he
overlooked that passage, which I am surprised at.” His
giant, however, is easily vanquished. The passage of Irenzeus
which this trifling writer alludes to, occurs in book iii. 6?,
and is as follows in the edition of Feuardent ; “I therefore
also invoke Thee, O Lord, God of Abraham and God of
Isaac and God of Jacob (who also is Israel), Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, the God who in the multitude. of Thy
mercies hast been well pleased with us, that we should
© See Defence of the Nicene Creed, Jacob, (qui est et Israel ») Pater Domini
1. 2. 5. nostri Jesu Christi, Deus qui per mul-
P Et ego igitur invoco te, Domine titudinem misericordiz tus bene sen-
Deus Abraham, et Deus Isaac, et Deus sisti in nobis ut te cognoscamus, qui
᾿ς Reading of a place in Ireneus respecting the Holy Spirit. 353
know Thee who hast made heaven and earth, who art the § 28—20.
Ruler over all things, who art the only and true God, above
whom there is no other God, through our Lord Jesus Christ,
- in Thy Lordship also Thou art Lord of the Holy Spirit ’.’? ’ domina-
On these words Feuardent comments as follows; ‘ An old wee sare
MS. [has] dominationem quoque donas Spiritus 8., ‘Thou naris Εν :
also givest the Lordship of the Holy Spirit ;? perhaps it ti.
ought to be read, donationem, &c. ‘the gift of the Holy
Spirits.’ But whether it be the one reading or the other, you
have, against the ancient and modern Arians, a confirmation
of the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, eternal and consubstan-
tial with the Father and the Son, of His majesty and domi-
nion.” Strange*! Feuardent derives a confirmation of the ? pape !
eternal Godhead of the Holy Ghost from the very passage out [406]
of which Mr. Clerke would prove, that the Holy Spirit is, in the
view of Irenzeus, a mere creature subject to the dominion of
the Son of God. But the true reading is, donationem quoque
donas Spiritus S., as was partly acknowledged by Feuardent ;
but clearly demonstrated after a collation of MSS. by my
very dear friend, the most learned J. Ernest Grabe, in his
very finished edition of the works of Irenzeus, whose note
on the passage should by all means be consulted. This most
unjust calumny of Mr. Clerke’s against the holy martyr is
not to be endured; for Irenzeus fully acknowledged the Holy
Ghost’s most absolute Godhead, as I have proved by the
clearest testimonies drawn from himself, Defence of the
Nicene Creed, ii. 5. 9°.
30. At length, in p. 135, Mr. Clerke comes to the conclu-
sion of his work (and the end is indeed worthy of the whole
performance*); “ Let us now,” he says, “ review what * dignum
has been advanced; what great accession has Dr. Bull ja, pl
brought to the support of his cause, by quoting about thirty culum.
fathers, of whom scarcely half have left us any writings which
are undoubtedly genuine, (fancy however thirty out of as many
thousand bishops,) to prove catholicity, ὁ, 6. the opinion of the
fecisti coelum et terram, qui dominaris a [The Benedictine edition reads,
omnium, qui es solus et verus Deus, dominationem quoque dona Sp.Sancti:
super quem alius Deus non est, per “Give also the governance of Thy Holy
Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, Spirit.” B.; that is, “ grant that Thy
dominatione quoque dominaris Spi- Holy Spirit may rule over us.” }
ritus 8.—[p. 181.] r (P. 178.]
BULL.—J. C. 6. Η AA
REPLY
TO
CLERKE.
[407]
' dispita-
tione.
354 Objections as to the genuineness and number of |
majority of Christians from the Apostles’ times and down-
wards? Let us hear Eusebius when speaking about bishops,
iceles. Hist. v. 22. “ Eleutherius (at Rome) was succeeded
by Victor; after Julian at Alexandria came Demetrius; at
Antioch Serapion the eighth in succession, at Czesarea
Theophilus, Narcissus at Jerusalem, Bacchylus at Corinth,
and Polycrates at Ephesus, were deemed of high reputation
among bishops. And in other places likewise many excellent
prelates are mentioned about the same time.’” My answer
is, that I have never cited any writings of the ancients in
defence of the Catholic faith, which, if any doubt were raised
about them, I did not first prove by solid arguments to be
really the works of the authors whose names they bear,
Who doubts that there were very many celebrated bishops.
and doctors in the Church, besides those whom I have quoted,
even though Eusebius made no mention of them? But how
does this make in favour of Mr, Clerke and his party? He
unquestionably meant his reader to suspect, that all of them,
or at least most of them, perfectly agreed in opinion with the
Unitarians, on the question of the Person of Christ; than
which nothing is more false. I have shewn in my treatise!
against Zwicker, that the Catholic view concerning Christ
prevailed in the Church of Jerusalem, the mother of other
Churches, from the very Apostles to the days of Adrian, by
whom [that Church] was dispersed. I have proved by unex-
- ceptionable witnesses, Hegesippus and Irenzus, that the
same doctrine descended by an unbroken tradition, in all the
other Churches, from the beginning down to their own times.
But Mr. Clerke proceeds, and says; “The same Eusebius
also makes mention of many Unitarians, who were nearer to
the Aposties, and who boasted of the Apostles, and the
successors of the Apostles, before the time of Victor, as being
(the greatest part of them) on their side.... And that they
were esteemed highly as philosophers and mathematicians,
whose names he also mentions, Aquila, Symmachus, Theo-
dotion, Artemon, Paul of Samosata, Natalis, Beryllus, Theo-
dotus, Asclepiodotus, Hermophilus, Apollonides,” &e. |
31. Surely Mr. Clerke must have thrown off all sense of ©
shame, otherwise he never would have dared to set in oppo-
sition to the holy doctors and martyrs of the Catholic Church,
authorities cited. Conclusion. 355
whose writings I have quoted, such infamous names as these.
Some of them lapsed from the Christian faith to Judaism. Ὁ
The rest were the most abandoned heretics, except Natalis
and Beryllus, who although for a time they themselves indeed
embraced the God-denying heresy, yet returned both of them
to the communion of the Catholic Church, and in it died.
All the rest, I say, have been condemned, as heretics, by the
universal Church. Mr. Clerke had previously expressed a
wish, that his soul might be with better theologians than are
the Trinitarians. Are these then his better theologians ?
may God have mercy on the man.
32. At last Mr. Clerke closes his treatise with the following
words; “That I may now then, finally, conclude; although
we were to concede to Dr. Bull that his testimonies were
most valid, this would not be sufficient for us who know the
mystery of the great apostasy ; [nor prevent] us from appeal-
ing from the Antenicene fathers to the Apostles.” In what
manner Mr. Clerke and his friends in England have appealed
to the Apostles, and the Scriptures of the New Testament,
is but too well known to us. The passages of holy Scripture,
clearer than the light, produced by us in defence of the
Catholic faith, they either wrest in an intolerable way, or call
their authority in question, or else absolutely reject them.
I might confirm my statement with such instances, as would
strike all pious minds with horror. But I close these Ani-
madversions of mine, with a solemn warning to my readers,
but ‘especially to students in sacred theology, expressed in
the words of the holy Apostle Peter at the very end of the
last chapter of his Second Epistle; ‘‘ Ye, therefore, beloved,
seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being
led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own
stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be glory both
now and for ever. Amen.”
ee nara! ¥ ed
we’ hella
re ἡ νγδηβά »σφρῥλίῳν ον ἐε τυ σρν ᾿
$y ὌΡΟΣ ἜΑ ger are ἐδὶς. ene ἘΣ
‘hate * τό νὴ ς ἄντα, ἐρυλνποσει
yo uate tieey sah hgiy itp re Sonnets cai
af οὐλὴ εἰ cree x ighnrs ἘΠῊΝ Aretha wast 9 hog Da E
ug ἊΣ ὅν i έν thin ot
te Pht: > es ᾿ re τὰν ΨΨῚ ΑἿ tg τε De 5
a” ? es zg — ea ν » ‘5 Ἔ εἶν ἬΝ ἢ
ΤΕΥ ce 1 ee att ΟΣ WES PP ie 2 seo see
; ie ; : d a - s ®, Ae oe ~ ax:
dary f aap net oc cols Ewes} izes ae Y a heres, doh τυ ‘
te6
Pinca alee ive : ‘gdgthee wee veges Ξ Panta. hae
coe arch Ἡρεδρβγ ραν ΚἽΓ΄ sel ὀ νων θα TE
ΠΥ
ree ». νυν ΟΣ eS az aa x Soe Δ} ¥
PE Pe 2 a: Vik ἐν ͵ Masters ua Are tte
4 . » εἰν τως δι
ἢ Ὁ es Pee AO bai Fo EE ἀπ ΤῊ Soe ae
- ‘ «. Μ΄.
‘ : > ee iz D> ines ai ke Te y :
«ἀν me oes ἢ STARS TS Et ὑ ak atleast ᾿
oe ‘ os ae a LF re aise & a ΓΝ Sa id
Γ ἘΣ τὸ Pa > a ᾿ sth URE ast RED Fad τὴς
ὙὙ Ὑ ν Σ 2: ζω > ; ‘ κἢ Py ων δὰ igh Fi ᾿ jie .
“ἘΝ |e tl Dp Pore Στ id oe KLEE --
} - ,
“ ? : ξ ἔν, . ᾿
(ἋΣ δ ΤΥ πΣεΣ ὅ η ΕΣ ΣΕ, 2
Η͂ + μ" ᾿
» ν φοι ἕ ; oy Sa
Tee ΝΌΟΣ ἘΠ ΣΝ ἢ Ps SP!
x Ἵ ε ᾿ . et th wig Ἢ
ck : " > <r WES: S ἜΕΡΈΕΈ arr ba SVE
2 " ᾿ ~~? ᾿ ‘
ἕ »» ” Me ΑΨ . ν
; +. i: ἐμ 5 FN tw 7 EAN eae ist?
: ι 3 ‘ “ hs
7 ἣ ᾿ Ὡ Ἢ
Ξ > ] > : ins Δ, é . ges ae Pe BH ᾿Ξ ees ΠΣ ati
7 » ;
« , ὃ ἐφ
ῃ Ἢ - Γ
oT Pee! NP Se) Soe te ve
4 Μ ἐ ae ‘. >
'
~ 4
2 te ω ἱ " ν + ; wry
᾿ Α ” . . «εἴ ᾿ ᾽
: ᾿ i ΝΜ i ΡΒ αν ¥ ent ‘i . :
. . 7
“2 , s ,
f : Σ ‘ + i « ad “se -_—
'
ex ye
re Ἂν - ᾿
, .᾿ A 4
᾿ 7 \ :
+ ΄
᾿
at ; )
ΝΥ “*
1 © , - ᾿ς [δ
- »* Ψ ἥ
- . il . Ὶ 2
᾽ ΝΜ é = »
r “
“ z Ay aL . .
og
» f “> a
ὰ ἊΣ (os “4 ;
. Σν
*
ry
Ὡ ’
ἧς ἃ A ver.
- ; F %
a ϑ'
᾿ .
- υ iY
Ὦ
ech
INDEX
FATHERS AND OTHER WRITERS,
WHOSE WORKS ARE QUOTED,
OR REFERRED TO,
IN THE THREE VOLUMES OF
BISHOP BULL’S WORKS ON THE TRINITY.
The Roman figures denote the volume; the Arabic, the page.
(The editions here mentioned are referred to, except where it is otherwise specified.}
A.
ἌΜΒΒΟΒΕ of Milan, a.p. 374. [Ed. Be-
ned, Paris, 1686—-90. 2 vols. fol.]
i. 19, 80, 163; 11, 563, 649; iii. 137,
Anastasius, the Librarian, a.p. 754.
[Fabroti. Paris. 1649. fol.] i. 327,
332; ii, 473.
Sinaita, a.p. 561. [Gret-
seri, Ingolstadii, 1606. 4to.] i, 244;
ii. 704,
Arnobius, the African, A.D. 303. [Lug.
Bat. 1651. 4to.]i. 358—361 ; ii. 428,
586 ; iii. 215.
Athanasius of Alexandria, a.D. 326,
{Ed. Bened. Paris. 1698, 2 vols. fol.]
1. 18, 19, 22, 40, 58, 64, 69, 71, 79,
80, 81, 97, 120, 122, 128, 133, 136,
163, 171, 232, 238, 243, 245, 246,
255, 283, 298, 299, 301, 302, 306,
308, 309, 311, 313, 348; ii. 401, 411,
412, 421, 423, 424, 443, 446, 447,
463, 468, 469, 489, 490, 497, 498,
499, 502, 558, 564, 588, 635, 645,
658, 665, 722, 731; 111, 14, 18, 60,
61, 132, 139, 140, 141, 143, 323, 351.
_Athenagoras, the Athenian, a.p. 177.
{ad calcem Justin. Mart.] 1, 53,125,
152, 153, 154; ii.433, 434, 436, 438,
439, 519, 643, 654; iii. 123, 348, 349.
Augustine of Hippo, a.p. 396. [Ed.
Bened, Paris. 1679—1700, 11 vols.
fol.] 1, 19, 22, 133, 163, 286, 301;
ii. 379, 452, 562, 563, 590, 621, 623 ;
iii. 42, 56, 61, 180, 137, 162, 219,
220,
} : i
Barnabas, 4.D. 72. {Inter Patres Apo-
stol. Cotelerii, Amstel. 1724. vol. i.
. p. 15.] i. 36, 37, 48, 86, 91, 94, 127;
’ i. 669, 670, 672, 673, 674, 676, 677
—é681.
Basil, a.p. 370. [Ed. Benedict. Paris.
1721—30. 3 vols, fol.] i. 61, 62, 68,
70, 74, 110, 113; 171, 182, 239, 240,
304, 306, 315, 325, 326, 332, 333,
334, 335; ii. 560, 563,588, 589, 617,
618, 636, 647, 693.
σ.
Caius of Rome, Δ.Ὁ. 210. [Routh, Re- ©
liq. Sacr. vol. ii. p. 2, (Ed. 2. vol. ii.
p. 123.) et in Bibliothecis Patrum. }
i. 206; ii. 381, 403,408, 707 ; iii. 55,
56, 57, 68.
Cassian, the Scythian, a.p, 436. [Gazeei,
Atrebati, 1628. fol.] 1. 163, 218; ii.
625.
Chrysostom of Constantinople, a.p.
396. [Ed. Benedict. Paris. 1718 — 38.
13 vols. fol.] 1.19; ii. 589; iii. 97,
300.
Clement of Alexandria, a.pD. 192. [Ed.
Potteri. Oxon. 1715, fol.) 1, 17, 18,
21, 24, 26, 39, 114, 181, 183—187,
189, 190, 192; ii 407, 409, 410, 451,
573, 577, 578, 605, 705, 706, 732;
iii. 89, 238, 262, 326, 327, 332, 338,
346,
398
Clement of Rome, 4.p.96. [Inter Patres
Apostol. Cotelerii, vol. 1. p. 145.]
1,106, 107, 108, 110; 11, 685—689,
693 ; iii. 73.
Council of Antioch, a,p. 269. [Routh,
Relig. Sacr. vol. ii, p. 463. (Ed. 2.
vol. 111. 287.)] i. 240, 320, 336; ii.
426, 427, 586, 609; iii. 59, 61, 68, 91.
Cyprian of Carthage, a.p. 248. [Ed,
Benedict. Paris. 1726. fol.] i. 19,115,
163, 285—289, 291; ii. 420, 712,717;
iil. 21, 69, 109, 117, 119, 155, 312.
Cyril of Alexandria, a.p. 412. [Auberti,
Paris. 1638. 6 vol. fol.] i. 163, 171;
ii, 869, 423, 444, 560, 589, 647, 653.
of Jerusalem, A.D. 350. { Touttei,
Paris, 1720.] ii. 617; iii. 70, 114, 133.
D.
Damascene, a.D. 730. [Lequien, Paris.
1712. 2 vol. fol.] ii, 561, 566, 589,
637, 648, 652; iii, 324,
Dionysius of Alexandria, a.p. 247.
[Simonis de Magistris, Rome, 1796.
fol.] i. 64, 238, 239, 307, 308, 309,
318, 319, 322 ; ii. 380, 423, 424, 425,
585, 586, 644, 645 ; iii. 31, 133.
of Rome, A.D. 259. {Routh,
Reliq. Sacr. vol, iii. p. 176. (Ed. 2.
vol. iii. p. 371.)] i. 64, 238, 239, 302;
ji. 421, 644; 111. 14.
E.
Epiphanius of Palestine, a.p. 368. [Pe-
tavii, Colonie, 1682, 2 vol. fol.] i.
242, 260; ii. 378, 731; 111, 32, 50—
52, 56, 137, 173, 178, 201, 239,
Evagrius of Antioch, a.p. 594. [Inter
Scriptores Eccles. Reading. Cantab.
fol. 1720. vol. iii. p. 245.] i. 335.
Eusebius of Ceesarea, a,D. 315. [Inter
Scriptores Eccles. Reading. Cantab.
fol. 1720, vol. i.] i. 1, 7, 8, 18, 39,
40, 63, 76, 101, 116, 118, 124, 134,
208, 220, 244, 281, 302, 304, 314, 315,
320, 322, 323, 340, 350; 11, 394, 396,
408, 432, 485, 488, 501, 503, 504,
560, 569, 570, 616, 617, 703, 723;
iii. 7, 26, 31, 39, 52, 55, 58, 59—62,
68, 127, 188, 191, 201, 215, 216, 217,
_ 218, 228, 235, 236, 238, 244, 249,
263, 334, 335, 336, 337, 354.
Euthymius Zigabenus, of Constan-
tinople, A.D. 1116. [In Biblioth, Pa-
trum. | 11, 647,
F.
Facundus, of Hermiane, a.D. 540, [Sir-
mondi, Paris. 1679. fol. ] ii. 713.
Fulgentius, the African, a.D. 507. [Des-
INDEX OF FATHERS AND OTHER WRITERS.
prez, Paris. 1684. 4to.] i. 23; ii. 638,
651, 714.
G.
Gelasius of Cyzicus, a.p. 746. [Balfo-
rei, Paris. 1599. 4to. et inter Con-
cilia.] i. 244; ii. 487, 495, 496.
Gennadius of Marseilles, a.p. 495. -
[Elmenhorstii, Hamburgi, 1614. 4to.
et inter Hieronymi Opera, vol. ii.
p. 949.] i. 286; ii. 704.
Gregory the Great, Pope, a.p. 590.
[Ed. Benedict. Paris. 1705. 4 vol.
fol.] i. 22,163; iii. 285.
of Nazianzum, a.D. 370. [Ed.
Benedict. Paris. 1778—1840. 2 vol.
fol.| i. 123, 355; 11, 884, 385, 387,
403, 452, 505, 559, 561, 588, 636,
652, 667; iii. 52, 121, 262.
of Nyssa, α. Ὁ. 370. [ Paris.
1638. 3 vol. folio.] i. 163, 188, 323,
324; ii. 559. *
of Neocesarea, [Thauma-
turgus,] A.D. 254. [Paris. 1622, et
apud Greg. Nyss. vol. iii. p. 546. et
ad calcem Op. Origenis, vol. iv. p.
59.] i. 166, 322, 328; 11, 425, 586.
_———
H.
Hermas, A.D. 100. [Inter Patres Apo-
stol. Cotelerii, vol. i. p. 75.] i. 88,
40, 41. 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 86, 88, 91,
93, 127; ii. 675, 682, 683.
Hilary of Poitiers, a.p. 354. [ Ed. Bene-
dict. Paris. 1693. fol.] i. 19, 59, 66,.
68, 163, 238, 347; ii. 489, 510, 562,
563, 564, 590, 591, 618—621, 626,
637, 650, 662; iii. 121.
Hippolytus of Portus, a.p. 220. [Fa-
bricii, Hamburgi, 1716—18. 2 vol.
fol.] i. 207, 209, 214, 215, 216, 238;
ii. 470, 473, 476, 632, 708—711.
- I
Idacius Clarus, 7.e. Vigilius of Africa,
A.D. 885. [In Biblioth. Patrum. ] i.
163.
Ignatius of Antioch, a.D. 101. [Inter
Patres Apostol. Cotelerii, vol. ii.
p. 11.] i. 48, 94, 95, 96, 102, 118,
134, 196; ii. 371, 372, 373, 380, 464,
604, 679, 684; iii. 4, 5, 6, 34, 35, 36,
82, 90, 98, 106, 122, 127, 170, 179,
238, 310.
Ireneeus of Lyons, A.D. 167. [Ed. Be-
nedict. Paris. 1710. fol.] i. 16, 38,
53, 55, 56, 82, 85, 155, 156, 160—
164, 166, 170, 172—181; ii. 376,
378, 382, 388, 389, 391, 393, 394,
398, 399, 406, 407, 462, 475, 538,
539, 578, 575, 576,577, 588, 602,
INDEX OF FATHERS AND OTHER WRITERS.
603, 604, 657, 691, 729, 730, 731,
732; iii. 7, 9, 28, 26, 28, 32, 71, 73,
74, 75, 85, 87, 91, 107, 108, 112, 122,
123, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130, 135,
148, 152, 159, 170, 177, 178, 234,
238, 245, 246, 251, 329, 352.
Isidore of Seville, a.p. 595. [Du Breul.
Col. Agrip. 1617. fol. And Arevali,
Rom. 1797—1803, 7 vol. 4to.] i.
163 ; ii. 626.
of Pelusium, A.D, 412. [Schotti
&e. Paris. 1638. fol.] 11. 722.
J.
Jerome of Stridon, a.p. 378, [Vallar-
_ sii, Veronee, 1734—42. 11 vol. fol.]
i. 22, 40, 218, 219, 220, 236, 259,
260, 263, 264, 265, 269, 272, 275,
278, 286, 293, 315, 320, 338, 340,
341, 342, 351, 358; ii. 452, 473, 475,
511, 651, 703; iii. 26, 42, 44, 45, 52,
60, 116, 161, 215, 221, 237, 243.
Justin Martyr of Samaria, a.p. 140.
[Ed. Ben. Paris.and Hage Com.1742.
fol.] i. 16, 21, 26, 52, 77, 94, 108,
135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 143, 145,
146, 148, 150, 251; ii. 402—406,
557, 572, 573, 574, 588, 595, 600 —
602, 695—698, 727, 728, 732; iii.
15, 45, 47, 48, 86, 90, 96, 103, 107,
124, 132, 153, 163, 165—169, 171,
172, 173, 177, 178, 181, 182, 183,
184, 186, 189, 192—198, 199, 201,
- 202, 224, 232, 233, 240, 253, 255,
257, 266, 267, 270—273, 274, 275,
310, 339, 341.
- dL,
Lactantius Firmianus, A.D. 303. [Paris.
1748. 2 vol. 4to.] i. [868, 365; ii.
545, 546, 547, 549—554; iii. 260,
262, 263, 264.
Leo I. Pope, a.p. 440. [Quesnel, Lug-
duni, 1700. fol.] i. 19.
Leontius of Byzantium, a.p. 590. [Ca-
nisii, Ingolstadii, 1603, 4to. et in
Bibliothecis Patrum.] ii. 726; iii,
169.
Lucian of Antioch, a.p. 294. [Apud
Socratem, ii. 10,71, 343; 11, 586.
M.
Marius Victor, or Victorinus, of Africa,
A.D. 362. [In Bibliothecis Patrum. ]
i. 163, 171; ii. 561, 590, 649.
Melito of Sardis, a.p.170.[Apud Routh,
Rel. Sacr. i, 185. (2d ed. vol. i. p.
113.)] ii. 708, 704, 705.
Methodius of Tyre, a.p. 290. [ Paris.
1657. fol. et in Bibl, Gr. Patr. Com-
befisii, Paris. 1672. } i. 352, 353, 354,
359
356; ii. 427, 452, 724, 725; iii. 96,
122. ;
N.
Nicephorus Callistus of Constanti-
nople, A.D. 1333. [Ducei, Paris. 1630.
2 vol. fol.] iii. 40,
Novatian of Rome, a.p. 251. [Ad cal-
cem Tertulliani.} i. 19, 131, 163,
294, 295; ii. 476,477, 479, 481, 511,
528, 557, 582, 597, 607, 609, 631,
632, 719—721; iii. 9, 10, 16, 29, 137,
291.
0.
Origen of Alexandria, a.D, 230. [Ed.
Benedict. Paris. 1733—59. 4 vol.
fol.|] i. 18, 24, 40, 64, 94, 102, 143,
163, 221—233, 235, 247, 249, 250,
251, 252, 258, 254, 255,256, 258,
259, 260, 264—269, 281, 300; ii. 411,
413, 414, 415, 417, 418, 419, 451,
569, 570, 582, 583, 584, 610, 612,
613, 614, 632, 635, 643, 644, 656,
704 ; iii. 11, 15, 16, 53, 54, 88, 171,
238, 256, 313, 333.
Ῥ,
Pamphilus of Ceesarea, A.D. 294. [Ad
calcem Op. Origenis, vol. iv. p. 17.
Append. } i. 64, 266—269, 274, 282 ;
i, 428; 111..11,12,. ..΄.
Paschasius the Deacon, a.p. 501. [In
Bibliothecis Patrum. ] i. 301.
Peter of Alexandria a.p. 301. [Apud
Routh. Rel. Sacr. vol. iii. p. 319,
(Ed, 2. vol. iv. p. 21.)] ii. 726.
Philastrius of Brescia, a.p. 380. [In
Bibliothecis Patrum.] i. 19; ii. 379;
iii. 42, 52. :
Philo Judeeus, a.p. 40. [Mangey, Lon-
dini, 1742, 2 vol. fol.| i. 30, 31, 32;
iii. 86, 103.
Philostorgius of Cappadocia, a.p. 425.
{Inter Scriptores Eccles. Reading.
Cantab. 1720. fol. vol. iii. p. 476.]
i. 113, 114; 11, 487.
Photius of Constantinople, a.p. 858.
{Hoeschelii, Rothomagi, 1653. fol.]
1, 57, 105, 191, 192, 207, 217, 236,
264, 270, 271, 298, 299, 338, 341,
354, 357; ii. 403, 428, 432, 473, 474,
686, 708; iii. 244, 270.
Pierius of Alexandria, a.p. 283. [Apud
Routh, Rel. Sacr. vol. iii. p. 211.
(Ed. 2. vol. iii. p. 425.)] i. 236, 339.
Polycarp of Smyrna, a.D. 108. [Inter
Patres Apostol. Cotelerii, vol. ii. p.
186.] i. 116, 117, 121, 134; iii. 33.
Prosper of Aquitaine, a.p. 444. [Oli-
varii, Col. Agrip. 1609. 12mo.]i. 171,
960
-Prudentius of Spain, a.p. 405. [Hein-
sii, Amstelodami, 1667..12mo.] ii.
625.
R.
Rufinus of Aquileia, A.D. 390. [De
Adult. Lib. Orig. Ad caleem Op.
Orig. vol. iv. p. 48. Append.] i. 64,
182, 192, 218, 272, 273, 292.
— [Ex-
positio Symboli Apost. Ad calcem
Op. Cypriani, p. excvii. Append. |
i. 40; ii. 564, 626; iii. 52, 81, 105,
113, 135, 138,161.
[ His-
toria Ecclesiastica. In Eusebii edi-
tionibus vetustioribus. ]i.324; at 23,
In-
vectiv. adv. Hieron. Inter Op. Hie-
ron. ] i. 260, 276.
Rupertus of Tu, a.p. 1111. [Mylii,
Col. Agrip. 1602. 2 vols, fol.] ii. 506.
8.
Socrates of Constantinople, a.p. 439.
[Inter Scriptores Eccles. Reading.
vol. τ, p.1.] i. 8, 4, 7, 45, 63, 67,
69, 83, 145, 244, 279, 280, 327, 343;
ii. 413, 422, 486, 554, 638, 641, 660,
664, 665; iii. 112, 119, 120.
Sozomen of Palestine, a.p. 440. [In-
ter Scriptores Eccles. Reading. vol.
ii.] i. 67, 83, 343, 345; 11, 555, 593,
661.
Sulpitius Severus of Aquitaine, a.p.
401. [Hornii, Lugd. Bat. 1654. 8vo.]
i. 280; ii. 474; iii. 41, 218, 249.
Synesius of Cyrene, A.D. 410. [Peta-
vii, Paris. 1631. fol. (una cum Cy-
rilli Hierosol. operibus.)] i. 125;
ii. 649.
ae
Tatian of Syria, a.p.172, [Ad calcem
Justini Mart.] i. 53, 140, 154; ii.
443, 448, 449, 450, 452, 453, 457,
458, 698, 728; iii. 265,
INDEX OF FATHERS AND OTHER WRITERS.
Tertullian of Africa, a-p. 192. [Priorii,
Paris. 1675. fol.] i. 18, 25, 27, 39,
40, 64, 83, 84, 92, 182,163, 194,195,
196, 197—206, 211, 237, 275, 289;
ii. 413, 439, 442, 446, 508, 509, 512,
514, 515, 518, 521—525, 527, 528,
529, 580—537, 542, 543, 544, 551,
558, 580, 581, 583, 596, 606, 607,
609, 610, 628, 642, 643, 652, 686,
717; iii. 9,16, 22, 25, 28, 29, 31,
37, 52, 55, 69, 77, 18, 82, 86, 101,
108, 118, 122, 130, 149, 152, 153,
158, 159, 251, 275, 309, 312, 328,
331, 347, 351.
Theodotus, of uncertain date, author
of some fragments appended to
Clement of Alexandria, Works, p.
966, i. 57.
Theodoret, a.p. 423. [Sirmondi, Paris.
1642. 4 vol. fol. (5th added by Gar-
nier, 1685.) et inter Script. Eccles.
Reading. vol. iii. Ὁ. 1.7 i. 19, 57, 77,
80, 96, 240, 244, 245, 246, 350, 352;
ii, 485, 490, 504, 581, 588, 591, 618,
645, 661, 664, 665, 667, 704; iii. 9,
50, 114, 117, 335.
Theognostus of Alexandria, A.D. 283.
[Apud Athanas. l.c. et apud Routh.
Rel. Sacr. vol. iii. p. 219. (Ed. 2.
vol. iii. p. 407.)] 1. 297; ii. 427.
Theophilus of Antioch, a.p. 168. [Ad
calcem Justini Mart.] i. 17, 154;
ii. 451, 460, 461, 596, 728.
wv.
Vigilius of Africa, a.p. 484, [In Bib-
liothecis Patrum. And Chifflet,
Dijon, 1664, 4to.] i, 163; 111, 111.
Ζ..
Zeno of Verona, A.D. 860, [In Biblio-
thecis Patrum.] ii. 490, 494, 495,
501, 592.
Zonaras of Constantinople, a.p. 1118,
[Beveridgii, Oxonii, 1672. fol.] ii.
5665.
INDEX.
PASSAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE,
EXPLAINED OR ILLUSTRATED IN THE THREE VOLUMES
BISHOP BULL’S WORKS ON THE TRINITY.
Genesis
XXi. 20.
Exodus iii. 4.
xxxiii. 2.
Judges
Psalms li.
Proverbs viii. 22—30.
Isaiah ix. 6.
χὰ; Ii
- xiii. 16.
1 Samuel xxv. 25.
i. 356; ii. 516.
ii, 525.
i. 87, 174, 222;
ii, 669, 728;
iii, 196.
i, 33.
4. 20.
ii, 574.
i. 84.
i, 84.
i. 20, 21.
ii, 404, 600.
i. 20.
iii, 52
ii, 405, 418, 428:
iii. 96.
ii. 482.
i, 141, 161.
ii. 563.
i, 286.
1, 21.
111, 98,
iii. 100.
i. 84.
i. 170, 222.
i. 290, 357;
ii. 523, 528.
i. 184; ii. 608,
609, 617, 701.
i, 148,
Isaiah ΧΡ 6; 7; lii. 263.
xxxv. 4, i. 286.
xlii. 8. i. 286.
xlv. 14. 1. 285.
Ixv. 25. lil. 263.
Daniel ον. 13, 14. iii. 300.
Hosea 1.1, i, 94.
Wisdom xviii. 15, 16. i, 32, 33.
Ecelus. xxiv. 3. ii. 500.
Matthew ivy. 10. 111, 280, 284,
vi. 9. ii. 607.
xii, 32. i. 248,
xxii. 42—46. iii. 19,.
xxvi. 64—66. iii. 151.
Mark xiii. 2. ii. 718.
Luke i. 35. ili. 85.
xii. 50. 111, 126.
ἤν ἢ, iii. 127.
¥x. 86. 111, 95.
John 421; li, 382; 111. 27.
i, 8. iii. 27.
i. 4. 111. 89,
i. 10, 11 lii. 27.
i, 14, iii. 29, 82,
ΣῊΝ i> 1:1, 29.
i. 18. i. 190; ii, 498,
619, 621.
lii. 6. ii. 717.
iii. 16. ili, 83, 96.
v. 19. i. 355.
v. 22. iii. 302.
v. 23 iii, 288, 294,
299, 312.
v. 27. iii. 299.
v. 87. ii. 715.
vi. 56. ii. 718.
vi. 61, 62 iii, 151,
362 INDEX OF PASSAGES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
John viii. 14, 15. iii. 17. 2 Corinth. xii. 2. > iii. 99.
viii. 18. ii. 715. xiii. 14. ili, 342.
viii. 58, 59. iii. 95. Galatians ii, 11. lii. 43.
x. 80. 1. 304, 312; ii, iii. 19, i. 20, 24.
- 888, 582, 592, iv. 4. iii. 106, 304.
645, 715, 721. iv. 8. iii. 147, 282.
x. 35, 36. iii. 91. Ephesians i. 10, ili. 106,
x. 835—39, iii. 91, 93, 95. iii. 18, 19. 111, 85,
xiv. 9. i. 312. iv. 6. ii. 557, 602.
xiv. 11. 1.304; ii. 422, 538. v. 19. iii, 229.
xiv, 28. 1.175; ii. 575, 583, vi. 18, i, 123.
588—590. Philippians ii. 6,7. i. 88, 108, 127,
xv. 26, ii. 715. 148, 291; ii. 586;
xvi. 15. ii, 592. iii. 301, 808.
xvi. 28. ii, 482; iii. 98. ii. 11. i. 257.
xvii. 3. ii. 557, 564. iii, 21. 111, 292.
xvii. 4, 5. iii. 313. Colossians i. 15. ii. 458, 497;
xx. 28, iii. 35. iii. 108.
Acts ii. 21. 111. 290. i. 16. i, 29; ii. 675;
ii. 15. iii. 89, 313. iii. 108,
vii. 80. 1, 20, 21. i, 18. iii. 96, 1038.
vii. 53. i,20. 1Thess. iii. 11—18. iii, 290.
vii. 59. iii, 290. 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17. lii. 290.
viii. 37. 11. 150. 1 Timothy iii. 16. i.90;ii. 405, 681;
x, 27. iii. 290. iii. 98, 313.
ix. 14, 111. 293. v. 21. iii. 286.
ix: AT iii, 150. 2Timothy i. 9. 111. 313,
xiii. 32, 33. iii. 95. Titus ii. 11—13. i. 183.
. xiv. 15. iii. 147, 148. iii. 10. iii. 13.
xvii. 23. iii. 147. Hebrews i, 1,2. i, 25, 127;
xix. 2, iii. 154. iii, 98, 99, 103, 309.
xx. 28. ii. 687; iii. 311. ΡΠ ΟΣ i, 107, 127, 253.
xxi. 30. 111, 95, i. 4. 111, 102.
xxii. 14. iii, 150. i. 8. i. 141, 254,
xxii. 16. iii, 290. i. 10—12, iii. 100,
XXvi. 22; 23, iii. 150. ii, 2. i. 20.
Romans i. 8, 4. iii. 96. 11. 9. 111. 304,
i. 82, ii. 686. ix. 14, i, 48,
viii. 18. iii, 308. xi. 3. iii. 99.
ix. 5. — i. 162, 195, 286; xi, 23, 24. li. 718.
ii, 558, 632, 685, xiii. 2. i. 20, 21.
721; iii. 331, 1 Peter Be a i. 300.
x. 8—10, iii. 146. iii. 18—20. 111, 98,
x. 13. iii 290,294. 1John i, 1—3. ili. 30, 31.
xi. 84, Hy B82. - ὦ ii, 22,28. iii.32, 198,312.
1Corinth, i. 2. ili. 290, 293. iv. 1, 2, 3. ili. 33.
’ 1. 23, 24, iii. 151. iv. 9. li. 88, 96.
ii. 8 ili. 313 iv. 15. iii. 36
ii. 10 iii. 352. v. 7. i. 288; 11, 718
viii. 4. ii. 557. Revelation i. 8. i. 286; ii. 417
viii. 5, 6 iii. 147. ii. 9. 11. 380
viii. 6 i. 234, ii. 28. 111. 292
x. 9 i, 27; iii. 101. iii. 9. 11, 380
xi. 10 111. 286. iv. 11. iii. 307.
xii. 4, iii. 352. v. 9. iii. 306.
xv. 3, 4, iii. 150. v. 12, i1i..288, 307.
xv. 24. ili. 299, xiv. 6, 7. 111. 148.
xv. 28, iii. 288. xix. 10, 111. 282, 285.
xv. 45. iii. 89. xxi. 6, i, 286; 11. 420,
xv. 47. iii. 88, xxii, 9, iii. 284,
INDEX
OF
THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS
CONTAINED
IN THE THREE VOLUMES OF
BISHOP BULL’S WORKS ON THE TRINITY.
A.
ἌΡΑΜ, his nobleness, iii. 86.
African Church, its agreement with
᾿ the Roman, iii. 77.
᾿Αγέννητος, not made, i. 96, 196, 210.
Αἰτία, or Αἴτιος, how the Father is the
cause of the Son, ii. 560.
Αἰῶνες, [‘ the worlds,”] iii. 99.
᾿Αναμάρτησις [“sinlessness”] belongs
only to the nature of God, i. 266.
Angels are ministering spirits and
created beings, i. 150, 154; iii. 286,
344,
are not to be adored, i. 150;
111, 285.
worship of, was not taught
by Justin Martyr, i. 149, 151.
Angel, who He was, that appeared to
the patriarchs, i. 18, 20, 22, 23, 29,
35, 141; ii. 600, 608, 617—618,
620—621 ; iii. 285.
Antichrist, vain speculations concern-
ing, ii. 474,
Antitrinitarians have selected the
divinity of the Son as the chief ob-
ject of their attack, iii. 137.
6 e [St. Tohn
with Platonism, om ΠΕ
claim Petavius as a
patron of their cause, i. 9.
either elude or per-
vert the Scriptures, i i, 99; iii. 209.
ike the heretic, iii. 180, 152.
Apollinaris, the heretic, 11, 581.
Apology of Pamphilus genuine, i. 272.
Apologies of the ancient Christians,
111, 214,
Apostles, next generation after them,
i. 52.
Arians, derived from the Gnostics,
i. 83; ii. 397, 412; iii. 64.
self-condemned, iii. 140.
held that there were two
Words, ii. 422.
never denied the pre-existence
of Christ, i. 16; ii. 485; iii. 63.
what forms of doxology they
- used, i. 112.
the reason of their wide pre-
valence, ii. 661.
denied the divinity of the
Holy Ghost, iii. 137.
——~— imitators of Valentinus, ii. 401.
the word ὁμοούσιος, “of one
substance,” was the only expres-
sion which they could not reconcile
with their heresy, i. 80, 641.
their Confessions, i. 242 ; iii.
120, 132, 139.
their pretence and dissimula-
tion, i. 79; ii, 641, 661, 662, 665,
667.
540.
Aristides, his Apology, iii. 214, 216.
Arius, by what means he deceived
Constantine, ii. 665.
their various dogmas, ii. 422,
364
Arnobius, his history, i. 358.
— falsely accused of Arianism,
i, 362. .
᾿Αρχὴ, the Father the beginning of the
Son; in what sense? ii, 558, 559.
Athenagoras, concerning his writings,
i, 53.
--------- falsely accused of Arian-
ism, ii, 433, 437; iii. 348.
accused of Sabellianism,
11, 438.
᾿Αὐτόθεος, God of Himself, whether the
Son is? 11, 565, 569.
Author of the Son, in what sense the
Father is, ii. 562.
B.
Baptism, what its formula was amon
the ancients, iii. 68, 70, 118, 115,
117,119, 134, 145, 146, 154.
—-——— rejected by what heretics,
iii. 125. |
Baptising εἰς τρεῖς dvdpxous, into three
Persons without beginning, con-
demned, ii. 565.
Barnabas, the Epistle of, and its
author, i. 36; ii, 214.
Basilidian heretics, iii. 35, 130, 182.
Beginning of the Son, &. [See’Apx7.]
Belief in the Baptism of Repentance
unto the remission of sins, iii. 117,
121, 125, 136, 138, 154, 155.
the Catholic Church, iii.
118, 120, 127, 135, 136, 158.
———— the Communion of Saints,
iii. 138.
— the Holy Ghost, iii. 68,
118, 119, 121, 123, 136, 137, 154.
———— the Life Everlasting, iii.
117, 119, 120, 130, 135.
- the Resurrection of the
flesh, iii. 119, 121, 130, 156.
— the Son of God, iii, 68, 73.
Bellarmine’s misuse of a passage of
Justin Martyr, to defend the wor-
ship of Angels, i. 149.
Beryllus of Bostra, the heretic, ii. 627,
634; 111, 59, 354.
Brochmandus, i. 321.
C.
Canons, the Apostolical, ii. 565.
Canticles, sacred. [See Hymns.]
Carpocratian heretics, iii, 180, 131,
' 175, 176, 239.
Catholic, an epithet applied to the
Church in the first ages, iii. 127.
Cause of the Son, &. |See Αἰτία and
FATHER. |
Cerdon the heretic, ii. 394 ; iii. 131.
Cerinthian heretics, i. 110, 223; 11,
INDEX OF PRINCIPAL MATTERS.
375, 377—380, 381, 383, 389 ; iii. 6,
7, 23, 29, 82, 33, 36, 42, 49, 102, 121,
131, 132, 175, 177, 219, 220, 224,
233, 239.
Cerinthians, how they differed from
the Ebionites, iii. 23, 239.
from
the Carpocratians, iii. 239.
Christ’s descent into Hell, iii. 133, 138,
158.
Sonship, five modes of, iii. 1.
kingdom, eternity of, iii. 131,
136.
——— reign on earth for a thousand
years, ii. 380; ili. 133.
Christ to be worshipped as God, i.
126, 141, 181, 183, 228, 257, 360;
ii. 370, 698; iii. 183, 215, 280, 293,
296, 298, 341.
had another nature besides
the human, i. 106, 178, 184, 195,
208, 211, 222, 286, 296, 358 ; ii. 406,
685, 700—702, 704, 706, 709—711,
725 ; iii. 4, 98, 108, 170.
— was glorified in the human
nature, i. 127, 128, 225; iii. 309.
——— created the world, i. 38, 107,
142, 152, 168, 172—174, 183, 186, .
214, 223, 319;%ii. 485, 458, 476,
495, 497, 656; 111, 27, 77, 90, 99,
131, 195, 245.
-had a divine nature before
His birth of the Virgin Mary, i.
107; ii. 730; iii. 27, 30, 73, 74, 77,
91, 181, 202, 217, 250, 304.
is not merely and simply man,
i, 108, 2945 11. 482; 111, 15, 20, 196,
202, 292, 308.
is almighty, i. 186; 198; ii.
416, 491, 494; 111, 328, 333.
is omnipresent, i. 187, 223,
229; ii, 602, 607, 611, 617, 652,
709; iii. 291, 337, 346.
is omniscient, i. 177 ; iii. 292,
337.
superior to the angels, i. 106,
121, 149, 168, 178, 179; ii. 551;
iii. 103.
— was truly born and suffered,
ii, 377.
is very God, i. 135, 144, 160,
297, 347, 352, 358—361; ii. 429,
[See Son.]
Church, ancient, what it held as ne-
cessary to be believed, iii. 2, 21.
——— designated Catholic in the time
of the Apostles, iii. 127.
of Jerusalem, the most an-
cient, iii, 114, 227.
orthodox, iii.
216, 218, 227.
its creed, 111,
114, 115, 138.
INDEX OF PRINCIPAL MATTERS.
Church of Neoceesarea untainted with
Arianism, when nearly all the world
was Arian, i. 324. Ἀ
of Rome, but little disturbed
by heresies, iii, 80, 81, 112, 135,
136, 138.
orthodox in the time
of Dionysius, iii 14.
its creed, iii. 77, 133,
136.
its devices, i. 12.
Churches of the East, much harassed
by heresies, iii, 112, 134.
Circumincession, [or circuminses-
sion,| see Περιχώρησι5.
Clement of Alexandria, when he lived,
11, 410.
his writings
adulterated, i. 191.
of Rome brought by Pho-
tius under suspicion [of heresy],
i, 105.
calls
expressly
Christ, God, ii. 686.
did not write the
Apostolical Constitutions, 1. 111;
iii. 120, 226.
his first Epistle
similar to the Epistle to the He-
brews, i. 107.
his second Epistle
vindicated as genuine, i. 109.
Recognitions false-
ly ascribed to him, i. 114,
Clerke, Gilbert, iii, 247, 319.
Coeternity of the Son, doctrine of, fol-
lows necessarily from that of His
consubstantiality, ii. 369.
with
the Father, was received in the
Primitive and Apostolic Church,
ii. 431.
Condescension of the Son of God.
[See Son.]
Confession of Gregory Thaumatur-
gus, i, 324,
Confessions of the Arians, i. 243 ; iii.
120, 132, 139.
Constantius the Emperor was really
Catholic, ii, 667.
Constitutions, the Apostolical, their
author and age,i.111 ; iii. 120, 226.
Consubstantiality, © Consubstantial.
[See “Ὁ μοούσιοκ.]
Controversy between the orthodox
ΤᾺ — Arians, the point at issue,
ii. 465.
— on the Divinity of Christ,
arose between the Catholics and
the Gnostics even in the Apostolic
age, ii. 401.
Council, truly universal, always has
the Holy Ghost present at it, i, 4.
365
Council of Antioch, A.D. 269, iii. 62.
did not repudiate
the term ὁμοούσιος, i. 66, 75.
not opposed to
the Nicene, i. 65, 78.
under Constan-
tius, i. 848, 347.
under Jovian,
1, 62.
of Carthage, ii. 712.
—____. of Constantinople, iii, 142.
Lateran, ii. 567.
of Nice, i. 1, 75, 81; 11, 566.
directed not against
the Arians only, i. 241.
why it used the word
ὁμοούσιος, 1. 79; 111. 142.
of Trent, anything rather than
a General Council, i. 12.
Creation, the work of God alone, i.
179 ; 11. 656; iii. 141.
Creature the, not to be joined with
God in doxologies, i. 123.
every, stands in the relation
of a servant to God, i. 87.
the, has not the power of
producing other things out of
nothing, ii. 655.
no, has divine worship given
to it, i. 130.
between the, and God, there
is nothing intermediate, ii. 458.
Creeds possessed by the respective
Churches, before the Council of
Nice, iii. 111, 117.
by what steps they were en-
larged, iii. 134. :
Creed, the so-called Apostolic, iii. 78,
144, 161.
of Jerusalem, iii. 114—115,
130, 133.
of Irenzeus, i. 181; iii. 71, 74, 75.
the Nicene, i. 113.
was not recited in
baptism, 111, 13.
was not framed
precipitately and without delibera-
tion, i. θ--- 9,
-—— of Rome, iii. 77, 133, 135.
of Tertullian, iii. 76, 77.
Curcellzus’s absurd statement re-
specting the Council of Nice, i. 81.
Cyprian was not an Arian, i. 289.
Cyril of Jerusalem, the author of the
Catechetical Lectures, iii. 116.
D.
Descent. [See Curist’s descent. ]
Devil, cunning of the, iii. 265.
Didymus of Alexandria, a defender of
Origen, i. 218.
366 INDEX OF PRINCIPAL MATTERS.
Dionysius of Alexandria, his Apology
not spurious, i. 314.
his. Epistle
against Paul of Samosata not spu-
rious, i. 320,
falsely ac-
cused, i. 182, 304, 317 ; ii, 423.
account of
his writings against Sabellius, i.
305 ; iii. 64.
Dionysius the Areopagite, ii. 647.
————— of Rome, orthodox, i. 302,
804.
Divinity of Christ more clearly mani-
fested after His resurrection, iii. 306.
viewed either abso-
lutely, or relatively, ὁ.6. personally,
i, 188.
Docetze, heretics, iii. 6, 29, 30, 38, 34,
131.
Doxologies, the ancient, declared the
Trinity, i. 112, 113, 118, 122, 124,
130, 133, 186, 332; ii. 184, 342.
E.
Ebion, really the name of a man,
lii. 51
— signifies poor, iii. 51, 52.
Ebionites, i. 116, 241; 11. 376, 634;
iii. 6, 8, 29, 33, 36, 42, 43, 49, 131,
173, 176, 178, 200, 219, 222, 224,
———— did not agree with the
Nazarenes, iii. 37, 40, 50, 220.
were regarded as heretics,
iii. 175, 180.
how they differed from the
Cerinthians, iii. 28,
mutilated the Scriptures,
iii. 178, 180.
—— two classes of, iii, 25, 39,
51, 53.
Elias Cretensis, ii. 386, 387, 396.
Episcopius wrote unbecomingly of
the Creed, authoritatively put forth
in the Council of Nice, i. 6.
wrote falsely of the gene-
ration of the Son, 111, ix., 2, 21, 65,
85, 91, 95, 98, 104, 163, 186, 194,
200.
———_——. but slightly acquainted
with the writings of the Fathers,
iii, xi.
Erasmus, an incorrect statement of,
respecting the divinity of the Holy
Ghost, i. 203.
prone to unsettle the sense
of passages of Scripture which set
forth the divinity of the Son, i. 141,
162.
Essence, the Divine, is not divided
into two parts, i. 139. See Οὐσία.
Εὐλογητός, [“ blessed,” ] how used as
an epithet by the-ancient Jews,
i, 121.
Eusebius of Casarea has omitted a
good deal respecting Gregory Thau-
maturgus, i. 327 ; ‘il. 723. ;
did not attri-
bute a beginning [of existence] to
the Son, ii. 486.
mistaken in his
chronology, i. 316.
was not an
Arian, i. 270; ii. 486, 503,570, 666.
transcribed
much from Hegesippus, iii. 241.
: what he wrote
before, and what after the Council
of Nice, iii. 337. -
a most ener-
getic opponent of the Sabellians,
ii. 487.
a writer of the
utmost integrity, and not unfair to
the Arians, i. 8,
his creed, iii.115.
—___— of Nicomedia, ii, 664.
Eustathius, was he a Sabellian? i. 68.
Eutychianism, i. 209, 210.
EF.
Father'the, and the Son confounded
by heretics, i. 159.
are one in
essence and nature, i. 152, 185, 186,
194, 295, 363; ii. 435.
in the Son, and the Son in
the Father, i. 184, 186, 308, 329;
ii. 435, 444, 642, 649.
_ ———_—_—— has a certain superiority,
i. 105, 111, 113, 188, 216, 258, 361;
ii. 575, 578, 579, 587, 628; iii. 320,
326.
- the fountain of the God-
head, i. 111, 119, 153, 159, 215, 234,
258, 356, 364; ii. 557, 563, 574, 628;
iii. 196, 307, 319, 323, 326. —
of the Son, ii. 563.
Cause of the Son, in what
sense, ii. 560, 574, 588, 589.
the root, or head of the
Son, in what sense, ii. 563.
—— author of the Son, in what
sense, li. 562.
greater than the Son, in
what respect, ii. 571, 575, 584, 588,
591.
the only true God, in what
sense, i, 5, 92, 106, 120; ii. 557;
iii. 18,
created the world, and
manifested Himself to the world
by the Son, i. 24, 284; ii. 526.
INDEX OF PRINCIPAL MATTERS,
Father, the names of the, suitable to
the Son, i. 198 ; iii. 328. .
Fountain of the Godhead. [See
FatHeEr.] _
G.
Generation and procession are not
always distinguished, i. 48; ii. 479.
Generation of the Son to create the
universe. [See Son.]
of the, 1. 137.
Γενητός, what is its meaning, i. 231.
Τενητός and γεννητός confounded, i. 96.
Γεννητός, made, i. 96.
George, Bishop of Laodicea, ii. 665.
Gnostics made the angels equal to
the Son of God, i. 142.
—— were the parents of the
Arian heresy, i. 83; ii. 397, 412.
.-- —— denied the resurrection of
the flesh, iii. 130.
—— their doctrines, i. 176; ii.
375—380, 384, 390, 395, 397, 407,
537; 11. 83, 121, 224.
their presumption, iii. 128.
taught, that the world was
made by inferior powers, i. 172;
ii. 656—657 ; iii. 131, 135.
—— denied the inspiration of the
Prophets, iii. 122.
taught, that the Holy Ghost
and the Paraclete were two ons,
iii. 122.
_
of God, mode
denied the consubstantiality
and the coeternity of the Word,
i, 83.
~ used the word ὁμοούσιος
[consubstantial] respecting their
own sons, i. 82,
God, the unity of, i. 92; iii, 19, 147.
“God, what is begotten of, is God,”
[τὸ ἐκ Θεοῦ γεννηθὲν, θεός ἐστι,] an
axiom, i, 85, 135, 188, 155, 193,
297 ; iii. 340, 349.
Gospel of the Hebrews the, iii. 237.
Government, the divine, delivered up
to Christ after His resurrection,
in three ways, iii. 305.
; is not
suitable to any creature, iii. 281.
belongs to
each Person of the Trinity, iii. 311.
Gregory Thaumaturgus, his genuine
Confession, i. 824.
was accused
wrongly, i. 182, 382.
his posthu-
mous renown, i. 326, 331.
Grotius prone to disturb the passages
of Scripture which set forth the
divinity of the Son, i. 141,
367
H.
Head of the Son, how the Father is,
ii. 563.
Hebrews, Epistle to the, for a long
time not received in the Church of
Rome, i. 46,
similar to
the Epistle of Clement, i. 107.
Heretics, several, who denied the
Divinity of Christ, ii. 634.
what sort of, lived in the
Apostolic age, iii. 4, 6, 29, 32, 33,
35, 36, 134.
in the time
of Ireneus, iii. 7.
in the time
of Justin Martyr, iii. 182.
: in the time
of Novatian, iii. 9.
of the first three centuries,
iii. 63.
Hegesippus commended by Eusebius,
ili. 241
—____—. his age, iii. 235.
regarded Cerinthus and
Ebion as heretics, iii. 239.
witnesses that oneand the
same doctrine continued from the
Apostles to his own time, 111. 244.
-------- his Ecclesiastical History,
iii. 240, 248, 251.
was not an Ebionite, iii.
236.
Hermas never charged by any with
heresy, i. 95.
— allowed repentance to the
lapsed, i, 44.
asserted the freedom of the
will, acting with and under divine
grace, i, 44.
authority of his book entitled
The Shepherd, i. 38, 40; iii, 214.
does not speak of purgatory,
i. 41,
Hermogenes, his doctrine respecting
the body of Christ, iii. 152.
respecting
matter, ii. 511.
Hippolytus, said to be the disciple of
Clement of Alexandria, i. 208; ii.
475.
209.
was not a Eutychian, i.
whether his work, On
Antichrist, is genuine ? ii, 473.
Holy Ghost, the, is to be worshipped,
iii, 124, 840,
is equal to the Father
and the Son, ii. 563; iii. 353.
- is sent by the Son,
i. 130.
368
Holy Ghost, the, His Divinity, i. 178,
179, 202, 288, 297, 315, 319; iii,
123, 341, 353. ‘
is not a creature, i.
112, 129, 179, 181, 297.
is never called by
Hermas the Son of God, i. 47.
is of one substance
with the Father, i. 123, 126, 154.
is a Person distinct
from the Father, i. 124, 180, 156,
178, 179, 248.
in what sense less
than the Son, i. 131, 289, 339; iii.
353.
is called Wisdom, i.
155, 173; ii. 472, 613, 729.
was always coex-
istent with the Father, i..178; ii.
472, 729. .
superior to the An-
gels, i. 173, 174, 179.
the bond of the
Trinity, i. 125.
estar: of Christ described, iii.
Hymns sacred, used in the primitive
Church, ii, 408 ; iii. 228.
acknowledging the divinity
of Christ, rejected by Paul of
Samosata, iii. 191.
‘Hypostasis, the sense in which it is
used in the Nicene Creed, i, 236—
246, 340. See ‘Yadoracts.
I.
Ignatius, his Epistle to Polycarp
genuine, ii. 371.
— his Epistles quoted by
Tertullian, i. 197.
genuine, and
spurious, i. 51, 95, 100, 101; iii. 214.
could not have been mis-
taken in a primary doctrine of
Christianity, i. 100; ii. 410.
— what heretics he wrote
against, ili. 4, 6.
Invocation of the name of the Lord,
what it means, iii. 294,
Trenzeus was an Asiatic, 111, 112.
did not attribute ignorance
to Christ, i. 174; 111. 351. —
——_—— a hearer of Polycarp, i.. 53,
134; ii. 410; 111, 7, 251.
—— what heretics he wrote
against, iii. 7.
———— acknowledged the Divinity of
the Holy Ghost, i. 177.
Irenicum ILrenicorum, &c., the work
entitled, written by Zwicker, i. 8;
iii, 210,
INDEX OF PRINCIPAL MATTERS.
J.
Jerome, an unfair critic of the works.
of Origen, i. 259—265.
unjust to Ruffinus, i. 340.
Jerusalem, Church of. [See CouRcH.]
Jews, the, thought Christ to be a
mere man, iii. 15, 103.
some of, expected that
Christ [the Messiah] would come,
as God and Man, iii. 19.
John the Apostle, charged with Pla-
tonism, iii. 277.
wrote his first
Epistle against Cerinthus and
Ebion, iii. 30.:
wrote his Gospel
against the same, iii. 26.
agreement of his
Gospel and first Epistle, iii. 31.
Judgment, why committed to the
Son, iii. 299.
Justin Martyr, at what period he
lived, i. 52; ii. 410.
_did not hold commu-
nion with those who denied the
divinity of Christ, iii. 163, 180,
187, 198, 224.
his Epistle to Diogne-
tus, genuine, i. 145; 111, 339.
did not teach that
Christ had a beginning, ii. 406.
was not the originator —
of the doctrine of Christ’s Divine
Nature, i. 98; iii. 214,
was not deceived by
the wiles of the Simonians, iii. 230,
231.
did not copy the Pla-
tonic philosophy, iii. 270.
always appealed to the
Scriptures, iii. 272.
did not take the doc-
trine of the generation of the Word
from the Orphic verses, iii. 266.
K.
Krigew, what it signifies, i. 190.
L.
Lactantius, account of, i. 363; ii. 545.
his authority in the
Church, but slight, ii. 509.
Larroque, the author of “ Observa-
tions” on Pearson’s Vindicie Igna-
tiane, i. 51,
Library of Jerusalem, iii. 217.
------- Pamphilus, iii. 218.
Λόγος and Λόγου δύναμις [ Word”
and “Power of the Word”] have
the same meaning in Tatian, 11, 450.
INDEX OF PRINCIPAL MATTERS.-
Λόγος, The Logos, [or Word,] was
known to the Jews, iii, 255.
The Procession or Condescen-
sion of the Logos, [or Word,] to
create the universe, ii. 501.
. The Logos, [or Word,] who was
with the Father from everlasting,
is the same as the Logos [or Word]
whom the-Father sent forth when
about to create the world, ii. 468.
Λόγος, in what, sense used by Philo
Judeeus, i. 51." .
Lucian, the heathen, intimation of the
Trinity in, i. 156; iii. 71.
Lucian, the Martyr, account of, i. 342.
i. 846.
falsel
' Arianism, i. 350; iii, 63.
accused of
M.,
Macedonius, the heretic, iii. 125, 137.
Malchion, the Presbyter, iii. 62.
pore ee leader of the Manichees,
iii. 52.
Manichees the, i. 84; ii. 547, 551.
Marcellus was a Sabellian, i. 68.
Marcion’s heresy, i. 251; ii. 386, 387,
389, 391, 393, 704; iii. 109, 180,
131, 152, 182.
resembled the heresy
of the Doceti, iii. 28, 34.
Martyrs were not worshipped in the
primitive agés, i. 129.
Mediator, the, necessary that He be ©
God and Man, iii. 169.
Meletius was Catholic, i. 62,
Mellier’s objections answered, ii. 669.
Menandrian heretics, iii. 6, 34, 35, 121.
Messiah, what sort of, was expected
__ by the Jews, iii. 19, 108, 167, 177.
Methodius, account of, i. 352. ᾿
— his work, the Symposium,
corrupted, i. 357.
. at first an adversary, and
afterwards an admirer, of Origen,
i. 218.
Millennium, ii. 380; iii. 183.
Μονογενής [“Only-begotten”], its sig-
nification, iii. 82, 85, 96, 103, 108,
Montanus, the heresy of, ii. 386.
———— was not heretical on the
Trinity, i. 83, 203.
Mysteries of the Christian Religion,
δία re reverence is due to them,
ii. 505.
N.
Natalis, the heretic, iii. 56, 354.
Nativities, in various senses ascribed
to the Son of God, ii, 405.
BULL.—J. ©. δ.
his Creedgenuine, —
369
_ Nazarenes did not agree with the
Ebionites, iii. 38, 39, 50, 220.
— the doctrine of the, iii. 41,
43, 50, 175, 219, 220, 228, 226, 249.
Nicetas, ii. 387.
Nicolaitans, ii. 382.
Noetians, heretics, i. 246, 248, 251,
264; ii. 412, 583, 634.
Novatians, the heresy of the, i. 45;
ii. 386; iii. 117, 119, 155. .
Novatian was not an Arian, 1. 294.
—— what heretics he opposed,
iii. 9.
Novatus and Novatian were different
persons, iii. 118.
Ο,
Ὃμσοιούσιος, [““ of like substance,”] ii.
668 ; iii. 148,
ὋὉμοούσιος, [“ of one substance,” ] i. 35,
en 58, 309, 321; ii. 666; ii. 143,
197.
this term appeared to some .
to introduce a division of the divine
ἢ essence, i. 75. ~
not fabricated by
heretics, i. 82.
not invented by
the Nicene Fathers, i. 68, 65, 246,
313, 314, 321.
in what sense re-
jected by the Council of Antioch,
i, 66
-Only-begotten. - [See Μονογενής.}
Origen defended from the charge of
Arianism, i. 233, 281.
—~—— accused and defended by the
ancients, i. 217, 220, 278.
his character, i. 278.
Commentaries on Job, spu-
rious, i. 321.
wrote his different works with
various objects, i. 219.
malleus hereticorum, i. 281.
might be called latitudinarian,
iii. 11,
——— his works corrupted, i. 218,
᾿ 260.
his opinion of heretics, iii. 13.
how he used the word ὑπό-
στασις, i. 246, :
used the word ὁμοούσιος, i. 247.
Orphic verses, ili, 253. .
Οὐσία, [“‘ substance or essence,”] used
to signify Person, i. 188, 236—246,
247, 339, 355.
P.
Pamphilus, his Apology for Origen
was not Arian, i. 270, 341.
BB
-
370
Pamphilus, the true author of the
Apology, i. 340.
a= — the Ee of his martyr-
_ dom, i i. 65.
Pantzonus, i. 181; ii. 410.
Papias, iii. 238.
Paraclete [the Comforter], iii. 121.
Paul the Apostle; was his rebuke of
Peter serious, or feigned ? iii. 43.
Paul of Samosata, i. 241, 836; iii. 60,
68, 191, 228.
used the word ὅμο-
ούσιος [“consubstantial ’ Ἴ in. a bad
sense, i. 66, 70, 75, 78.
_ Pearson’s Vindicice Tgnatiane, i. 51;
ii, 372.
Περιχώρησις [“ circumincession,” or
“ mutual inexistence”’| of the ἘΝΗ͂Ν
and the* Son, ἱ. 1δὅ2, 239, 285;
641, 644, 647, 650, 652 ‘ iii. 323°
Persona, the word, i. 238, 246; ii. 534.
Petavius asserted that some Ante-
‘ nicene Fathers held the same
opinions as Arius, i. 9.
suspected of Arianism, i. 12.
— unjustly accused Origen, i.
_ 220, 238; 1, 414. ᾿
———— cause of his injurious state-
_ ments against the Antenicene Fa-
thers, i. 11.
Philo Judzeus, did he follow Plato? i.
32.
Photius, hostile to Origen, i. 299.
Φύσις, used for Person, i. 188 ; iii. 333,
336.
Pierius, account of, i. 338; 3; li. 428.
Plato wrote concerning the Logos, iii.
274.
Platonic philosophy, the, iii. 269.
Pliny’s testimony respecting the Chris-
tians, ii. 408.
Pneumatomachi, Γ᾿ fighters against
the Spirit,”] i. 124, 130, 293.
Poemandres [Ποιμάνδρης Ἷ, when the
author of the work so called lived,
i. 57, 66.
Polycarp, when he suffered martyr-
dom, i. 52, 118; iii. 213.
wrote several Epistles, 1.116.
Prayer is taken, either as including
thanksgiving, or [simply] as suppli-
cation for divine aid, iii. 294, 295.
Principle [or beginning, its meaning
manifold, ii. 559.
᾿ Procession and generation not always
distinguished, i. 48; ii. 479.
Psalms of the ancient Christians, ii.
408; iii. 228.
Psathyriani, heretics, i. 244.
Purgatory, unknown in the first three
centuries, i, 41.
_ INDEX OF PRINCIPAL MATTERS.
Q.
Quadratus, the Apology of, iii, 214.
R.
Recognitions, falsely attributed to
Clement, i. 114.
Redemption of Man, the mystery of,
i, 147.
Remission of sins proves Christ to be
God, ii. 701.
Rome. [See Cuurcu.]
Root of the Son, in what sense the
Father is,” ii. 563.
Ruffinus, commendations of, i, 218,
272.
Rupertus Tuitiensis [abbot of Tu], ii
506.
8.
Sabellian heresy, i. 77, 240, 296, 302,
312, 326, 345; ii. 565; 627, 637.
the like existed in
the time of Justin Martyr, i. 138;
li. 626; iii. 198.
Sabellians, the, did not adopt the
word ὁμοούσιος [of one substance” },
i. 70, 27, 318.
Sabinus formed a rash and shameless
judgment ere the Nicene
Council, i. .
_ Sandius cea eg a book’ entitled “ The
Kernel of Ecclesiastical History,”
[Nucleus Eccl. Hist.] i. 8.
——— without any authority pro-
nounced MSS. to be corrupt, ii. 578.
adjudged the Apology of Dio-
nysius to be spurious, i. 314.
collected and amassed stories
and falsehoods from all sources,
i, 293.
pretended, that the Son once
πριεᾷ only potentially, ii. 426.
judged the works of Hippo-
lytus to be spurious, i. 207.
accused Tertullian of Arian-
ism, i. 203.
Saturninians, heretics, iii. 6, 29, 84, 35.
Semiarians, i, 62, 242; ii. 503, 689;
iii, 143,
Sibylline "oracles, i ili. 255, 258, 259,
— verses, not forged by’ the
primitive Fathers, iii. 256.
interpolated by the .
Christians of later times, i 111. 263.
wen oe the prince of heretics,
ii
distorted the apostolic
doctrine to his own impious ἀοβτάμα
111. 294.
INDEX OF PRINCIPAL MATTERS,
Simonians, heretics, iii. 6, 29, 121, 130,
231, 265.
Sisinnius, account of, ii. 660.
Socinians acknowledge that the Fa-
thers are opposed to them, iii. 319.
————. disputes among, touching
the adoration of Christ, iii. 296.
Socinus says, we are not bound to in-
voke Christ, iii. 292.
allows, that Christ was held
- to be God, i. 6.
- allows, that Christ is worthy
_ of divine honour, iii, 288.
———- what his opinion was concern-
ing the doctrine of. the Church be-
fore the Nicene Council, i. 5.
Son the, existing from everlasting,
i. 213, 337, 353; ii. 371, 404, 409,
411, 419, 420, 424, 436, 478, 494,
496, 503, 512, 526, 532, 542; iii.
324, 849.
— begotten from everlasting,
ii. 441, 445, 478.
equal to the Father, i. 164,
166, 177, 184, 198, 199, 291, 338;
li. 425, 563, 574, 576, 578, 579, 583,
585, 587, 589; ili. 325, 326.
— distinct from the Father in
person, but not in nature, i. 137,
140, 156, 178, 215, 237, 248, 311,
363; 1. 437, 454, 463, 536, 645;
iii. 196, 197, 199.
———— whether He be αὐτόθεος (God
of Himself)? ii. 565, 569.
God, signifies the Divine
Nature of Christ, L.129..->
in what sense He is
called “ Holy Spirit,” i. 47, 48, 89,
110, 155; 11. 683.
“said by heretics to be the
Father Himself, 1, 159, 248, 250.
of the same nature with
the Father, i. 6, 126, 137, 174; ii.
3702
——-— 0
oe
—and the Father are One, i.
152, 185, 186, 194, 295, 330, 362,
363; ii. 417, 435, 582.
begotten of the essence and
substance of God the Father, i. 140,
337; ii. 370, 575; iii, 142, 347.
— begotten, as Light of Light,
i, 78, 85, 120, 137, 138, 140, 153,
194, 214, 254, 256, 298, 364; ii.
425, 427, 471, 544, 575, 635; iii.
His second generation, to
create the universe, i. 214; ii, 431,
433, 435, 445, 447, 458, 457, 458,
461, 467, 469, 472, 478, 484, 485,
499, 493, 495, 500, 504, 507, 512,
514, 515, 520, 524, 527, 530, 532,
555, 728; iii. 350.
-———_——— in the Father and the Father
371
in the Son, i. 184, 186, 308, 330;
li. 434, 597, 603, 625, 643, 650.
Son the, invisible and immeasurable
equally as the Father, i. 164, 232;
ii, 594, 605, 607,609, 613, 615.
— why called Logos [or, “the.
Word”), ii. 441, 442,
———— in what sense the Minister
of the Father, ii. 572 ; iii. 333, 339.
is not a creature, i. 86, 110,
112, 118, 121, 144, 147, 153, 167,
169, 191, 215, 223, 228, 230, 295, -
298, 303, 307, 318, 335, 353, 365;
ii. 420, 480, 436, 456, 458, 496—
498 ; iii. 70,74, 196, 199, 227, 304,
330, 339, 349.
— is not separated from the
Father, i. 200, 307; 364; ii. 645, 646,
653.
Son the, is not in the Father virtu-
ally, or potentially only, ii. 426, 438,
449, 455, 462, 486, 487, 513; iii.
199.
is of one substance, ὁμοού-
ows, with the Father, i. 35, 57, 84,
118, 122, 188, 140, 154, 189, 193,
284, 297, 310, 313; ii. 370, 658;
111, 197.
.-----------
in what sense He is dvapxos
[“ without beginning ”’}, ii. 559.
——--—— in what sense He is called
“Angel,” i, 22, 139; ii. 601, 609,
617, 618, 620, 622,
in what sense He is called
Only-begotten, and in what sense
First-begotten, ii, 496—502; iii. 83,
85, 96, 103, 107, 108.
in what way called ἀρχή
[“ Beginning” ], ii. 451, 457—459.
—————- appeared to holy men under
the Old Testament, i. 16, 24, 29, 35,
141, 161, 162, 201 ; ii. 594, 603, 606,
613, 696, 697, 698 ; iii. 183, 286, 337, «
345, 347. .
———— is called Wisdom, i. 155,177,
189, 190, 223, 227, 233, 253, 266,
268, 287, 290, 307, 329, 337, 356;
ii. 411, 416, 421, 480, 500, 510, 513,
523, 526, 558, 562, 581, 696, 707.
——-—— always coexisted with the
Father, i. 167, 177, 179 ; ii. 398, 403,
404, 407, 411, 414, 421, 424, 426,
436, 453, 454, 462, 464, 472, 476,
477, 485, 492, 495, 516, 520, 554,
581.
subordinate to the Father,
i. 106, 111, 113, 170, 188, 216, 233,
251, 338 ; 11,556, &c., 563, 581, 583,
608 ; iii. 320.
born or put forth in three
ways, i. 214; ii. 405, 505.
— had a real subsistence [ὑπό-
στασι5}, i, 240.
372
Son, the, the Condescension [ovyka-
TtaBaots| of, ii, 493, 497, 499, 502,
~ 505, 591.
Soul, the human, cannot be omni-
scient, iii, 291.
the, of the first man, the origin
of, i. 274.
Spirit, Holy, taken for the Divine
Nature, i. 47, 89, 94, 110, 176; ii
524; 111. 35, 89, 97, 352.
_—_——_— in what sense the title
is given to the several Persons of
the Trinity, i. 47, 155, 287.
See Holy Ghost.
yi
Tertullian, whether he wrote verses
against Marcion ? ii. 543.
— his doubtful phrases ex-
plained, i. 199; ii. 508, 515.
referred to the Epistles of
Ignatius, i. 197.
— refuted the heresy of Eu-
tyches, i. 210.
imitated the Greek [Eccle-
siastical] writers, i. 64, 197, 238.
did not believe God to be
corporeal, ii. 514.
———— was orthodox on the Tri-
nity, i. 292 ; ii. 508. "
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
ii. 694,
Theodotus of Byzantium, the heretic,
i. 84, 116, 350; ii. 684 ; iii. 55, 56.
Theognostus, i i. 297, 298.
Theophilus defended from Arianism,
ii, 459.
cds, and ὁ Θεός, ii. 706.
Trent, the assembly of, not a General
Council, i. 12.
Trinity of the Divine Persons, the,
i. 148, 153, 155, 156, 178, 187, 201—
203, 216, 238, 239, 244245, 247,
288, 297, 302, 304, 809, 519, 323;
326, 346; ii. 425, 426, 430, 438,
452, 476, 503, 561, 563, 565, 580,
585, 636—637, 643, 645, 648, 649,
721—722 ; iii, 16, 69, 124, 311, 323,
335, 340.
--- -
U.
‘Ubiquity, an attribute of God only,
1. 224,
Union of the Godhead and the Man-
‘hood in Christ, i. 223, 224 ; ii. 700.
among the Divine Persons
INDEX OF PRINCIPAL MATTERS.
without cutting, or separation, i.
284 ; 11. 642. ᾿
pa a [hypostasis], 1, 236—246,
and οὐσία con-
founded, i. 236—246, 247.
Υ.
Valentinians, heresy of the, i. 164, 167,
247, 261, 290; ii. 381—383, 533,
537, 539, 576, 730; iii. 126, 130, 182.
two sects of the, iii. 125.
‘Virgil’s Eclogue 4th, iii. 258.
Ww.
Wisdom, a title given to the Son and
to the Holy Ghost, i. 155, 156; ii.
472; iii, 185.
of Solomon, not written by
Philo, i. 32.
Word of God. [See Logos. ]
and word of man com-
pared, ii. 522.
put for God, by the ᾿
Chaldee Paraphrast, i. 34.4
World, the Father was the primary
Creator of the, i. 233.
——_—_—— created -by the Father
through the Son, i. 24, 235 ; ii. 527.
World [ody] a threefold, [in Hebrew
literature,] iii. 99.
Worship, divine, given to God only,.
iii. 287, 290, 296.
X.
Xystus, Pope, how many years he
occupied the Papal see, i. 316.
Z.
Zenobia, was she a Jewess? iii. 61.
Zwicker, author of the Jrenicum Ire-
nicorum, i. 8; iii. 210.
asserted that the Nicene Fa- Ὁ
thers were the framers of a new
faith, i. 8.
his statements about Hege-
sippus false, iii. 236.
— wrote falsely of Justin Mar-
tyr, iii. 212, 230, 268, 279.
----- was in error about the Or-
phic verses, 111, 253.
— heaped together ancient tes-
timonies from the writings of other
persons, i. 122.
THE END.
BOOKS
UBLISHED BY
PARKER AND CO.
OXFORD, AND 6 SOUTHAMPTON-STREET, STRAND, LONDON.
Theological, Xe.
REV. J. WORDSWORTH, M.A.
THE ONE RELIGION: Truth, Holiness, and Peace desired by the
Nations, and revealed by Jesus Christ. EIGHT LECTURES delivered before
the University of Oxford, in the Year 1881. By Jonn Worpswortn, M.A.,
Tutor of Brasenose College; Prebendary of Lincoln Cathedral, and Examining
Chaplain to the Bishop of Lincoln. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
UNIVERSITY SERMONS ON GOSPEL SUBJECTS. By the
Rev. Joun Worpswortnu, M.A. Fcap., cloth, 2s. 6d.
REV. PROFESSOR SANDAY.
THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: Its Present Position,
and some of its Problems. AN INAUGURAL LECTURE delivered on
Feb. 20th and 22nd, 1888. By W. SANDAY, M.A., D.D., Dean Ireland’s
Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture. 64 pp. 8vo., in wrapper, 2s.
REV. A. H. HORE, M.A.
EIGHTEEN CENTURIES OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND.
By the Rev. A. H. Hore, M.A., Trinity College, Oxford. 712 pp. Demy 8vo.,
loth, 15s.
ie ; REV. CANON HOLE.
HINTS TO PREACHERS, wirx SERMONS axp ADDRESSES.
By S. Reynotps ΗΟ}, Canon of Lincoln. Second Edition. Post 8vo., cloth, 6s.
REV. E. F. WILLIS, M.A.
THE WORSHIP OF THE OLD COVENANT CONSIDERED
mMoRE ESPECIALLY in RELATION To tuat or tHE NEW. By the
Rey. E. Εν Wituis, M.A. Post 8vo., cloth, 5s.
ARCHDEACON DENISON.
NOTES OF MY LIFE, 1805—1878. By Grorez ΑΝΤΗΟΝΥ
Denison, Vicar of ‘East Brent, 1845; Archdeacon of Taunton, 1851. Third
Edition. 8vo., cloth, 12s.
FRANCIS PAGET, M.A.
CONCERNING SPIRITUAL GIFTS. Three Addresses to Can-
didates for Holy Orders in the Diocese of Ely. Together with a Sermon. By
Francis Pacer, M.A., Senior Student of Christ Church, Oxford; Examining
Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Ely. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
THE REDEMPTION OF WORK. ADDRESSES spoken in St.
Paul’s Cathedral, by Francis Paget, M.A., Senior Student of Christ Church,
Oxford. 52 pp. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 2s.
BISHOP OF BARBADOS.
SERMONS PREACHED ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS. By Joun
MitcHINSON, late Bishop of Barbados. Crown 8vo., cloth, 5s.
THE LATE BISHOP WILBERFORCE.
SERMONS PREACHED ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. With a
Preface by the Lord Bishop of Eny. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
[383.1.10.]
2 THEOLOGICAL WORKS, &c. (continued).
THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE SUCCES-
SIVE REVISIONS OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. By
JAMES ParKeER, Hon. M.A. Oxon. Crown 8vo., cloth, 12s.
THE FIRST PRAYER-BOOK OF EDWARD VI., COMPARED
with the Successive Revisions of the Book of Common Prayer; with a Concordance
and Index to the Rubrics in the several editions. By the same Author. New
Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 12s.
A CueEar EDITION oF
THE FIRST PRAYER-BOOK as issued by the Authority of the
Parliament of the Second Year of King Edward VI. Third Thousand. 24mo.,
limp cloth, 1s, ᾿
SECOND PRAYER-BOOK OF EDWARD VI. Issued 1552. Third
Thousand. 24:no., limp cloth, 1s.
THE LATE REV. J. KEBLE, M.A.
STUDIA SACRA. COMMENTARIES on the Introductory Verses
of St. John’s Gospel, and on a Portion of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans; with
other Theological Papers by the late Rev. Joun Kesie, M.A. 8vo., cl., 10s. 6d.
OCCASIONAL PAPERS AND REVIEWS. By the late Rey.
JouN Kesve, Author of “ The Christian Year.”” Demy 8vo., cloth extra, 12s.
LETTERS OF SPIRITUAL COUNSEL AND GUIDANCE. By
the late Rev. J. Kzpuxz, M.A., Vicar of Hursley. Edited by R. F. Wixson,
M.A., Viear of Rownhams, &c. Fourth Edition. Post 8vo., cloth, 6s.
OUTLINES OF INSTRUCTIONS OR MEDITATIONS FOR
THE CHURCH’S SEASONS. By Joun Kesie, M.A. Edited, with
a Preface, by R. F. Witson, M.A. Crown 8vo., toned paper, cloth, 5s.
THE LATE BISHOP OF BRECHIN.
AN EXPLANATION OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES.
With an Epistle Dedicatory to the Rev. E. B. Pussy, D.D. By A. P.
Forses, D.C.L., Bishop of Brechin. Second Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 12s,
A SHORT EXPLANATION OF THE NICENE CREED, for the
Use of Persons beginning the Study of Theology. By ALEXANDER PENROSE
Forses, D.C.L., Bishop of Brechin. Second Edition, Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE
BODY OF CHRIST. The Bampton Lectures for 1868. By Grorce Moserty,
D.C.L., Lord Bishop of Salisbury. Third Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
SERMONS ON THE BEATITUDES, with others mostly preached
before the University of Oxford. By the same. Third Edition. Crown 8vo.,
cloth, 7s. 6d.
REV. WILLIAM BRIGHT, D.D.
A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, from the Edict of Milan, a.p.
313, to the Council of Chalcedon, a.p.451, Second Edition, Post 8vo., 10s, 6d.
THEOLOGICAL WORKS, &c. (continued). 3
CATENA AUREA. A Commentary on the Four Gospels, collected )
out of the Works of the Fathers by S. THomas Aquinas. Uniform with the
Library of the Fathers, Re-issue. Complete in 6 vols. 8vo., cloth, £2 2s.
THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING
TO 5. MARK Vindicated against Recent Critical Objectors and Established,
by Joun W. Buraon, B.D., Dean of Chichester. With Facsimiles of Codex αὶ
and Codex L. 8vo., cloth, 6s.
THE EXPLANATION or raz APOCALYPSE by VENERABLE
BEDA, Translated by the Rev. EDW. MARSHALL, M.A., F.S.A., formerly
Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. 180 pp. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
A COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES AND GOSPELS IN
THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. Extracted from Writings of the
Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, anterior to the Division of the East and
West. With an Introductory Notice by the Dean or St. Paut’s. In Two
Vols., Crown 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
THE PRINCIPLES OF DIVINE SERVICE; or, An Inquiry con-
cerning the True Manner of Understanding and Using the Order for Morning and
Evening Prayer, and for the Administration of the Holy Communion in the
English Church. By the late Ven. Puitie FREEMAN, Archdeacon of Exeter.
A New Edition. 2 vols., 8vo., cloth, 16s.
THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE SACRIFICE AND
PARTICIPATION OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. By Georce Trevor,
D.D., M.A., Canon of York; Rector of Beeford. Second Edition, revised and
enlarged. Crown 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
THE HISTORY OF CONFIRMATION. By Wui11am Jackson, M.A.,
Queen’s College, Oxford; Vicar of Heathfield, Sussex. Crown 8vo., cl., 2s. 6d.
CHRISTIANITY AS TAUGHT BY §8. PAUL. The Bampton
Lectures for 1870. To which is added an Appendix of the Continuous Sense
of 5. Paul’s Epistles; with Notes and Metalegomena. By the Rev. W. J.
Irons, D.D., ἄς. Second Edition, with New Preface, 8vo., with Map, cloth, 9s.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CHRISTIAN MORALITY. The Bamp-
ton Lectures for 1873. By the Rev. I. Grecory Smirn, M.A. Second Edition.
Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
APOLLOS; or, THE WAY OF GOD. A Plea for the Religion of
Scripture. By A. CLEVELAND Coxz, Bishop of New York. Crown 8vo., cl., 5s.
DISCOURSES ON PROPHECY. In which are considered its Struc-
ture, Use, and Inspiration, By Joun Davison, B.D. 4 New Edition.
8vo., cloth, 9s,
BEDE’S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH
NATION. A New Translation by the Rev. L. GrpuEy, M.A., Chaplain of
St. Nicholas’, Salisbury. Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s.
RICHARD BAXTER ON THE SACRAMENTS: Holy Orders,
Holy Baptism, Confirmation, Absolution, Holy Communion. 18mo., cloth, Is.
{ ANCIENT DOCTRINAL TREATISES, &.
~ ‘
THE CONSTITUTIONS AND CANONS ECCLESIASTICAL OF
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, Referred to their Original Sources, and
Illustrated with Explanatory Notes. By the late Mackxrnzize Εἰ. C. WatcorrT,
B.D., F.S.A. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED, by
the Rev. D. WateRLAND, D.D. Edited by the Rev.J. R. Kine, M.A. Feap.
8vo., cloth, ds.
THE PASTORAL RULE OF ST.GREGORY. Sancti Gregorii
Pape Regule Pastoralis Liber, ad Johannem Episcopum Civitatis Ravenne.
With an English Translation. By the Rev. H. R. Bramtey, M.A., Fellow of
Magdalen College, Oxford. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 6s.
THE DEFINITIONS OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH and Canons of
Discipline of the first four General Councils of the Universal Church. In Greek
and English. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
DE FIDE ET SYMBOLO: Documenta quedam nec non Aliquorum
SS. Patrum Tractatus. Edidit Carotus A. Heurt ey, S.T.P., Dom. Mar-
garete Prezlector, et Audis Christi Canonicus. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 4s. 6d.
S. AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS, Episcopus Hipponensis, de Catechi-
zandis Rudibus, de Fide Rerum que non videntur, de Utilitate Credendi. In
Usum Juniorum. Edidit C. Marriort, S.T.B., Olim Coll. Oriel. Socius. ew
Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
ANALECTA CHRISTIANA, In usum Tironum. Excerpta, Epi-
stole, &c., ex Eusesu, &c.; S.I@natit Epistole ad Smyrnzos et ad Poly-
carpum; E. S. CLementis ALEXANDRI Pedagogo excerpta; 8. ATHANASII
Sermo contra Gentes. Edidit et Annotationibus illustravit C. Marriort,
S.T.B. 8vo., 10s. 6d.
S. PATRIS NOSTRI 5. ATHANASII ARCHIEPISCOPI ALEX-
ANDRIZ DE INCARNATIONE VERBI, ejusque Corporali ad nos Ad-
ventu. With an English Translation by the Rev. J. Ripaway, B.D., Hon.
Canon of Christ Church. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 5s.
OXFORD SERIES OF DEVOTIONAL WORKS.
Fcap. 8vo., printed in Red and Black, on toned paper.
The Imitation of Christ. Taylor’s Holy Living.
FOUR BOOKS. By Thomasa Kem-|+HE RULE AND EXERCISES
pis. Cloth, 4s.—Pocket Edit., 32mo., cl., 1s. age εἰμ een ING. By Brsxor'Janeee
Taytor. Antique cloth, 4s.—Pocket Edi-
tion, 32mo., cloth, 15.
Andrewes’ Devotions.
Taylor’s Holy Dying.
DEVOTIONS. By the Right Rev.| THE RULE AND EXERCISES
Father in God, LaunceLot. ANDREWES. OF HOLY DYING. By Bisnor Jeremy
Translated from the Greek and Latin, and TAYLOR. Antique cloth, 4s.—Pocket Edi-
arranged anew. Antique cloth, 5s. tion, 32mo., cloth, 15.
DEVOTIONAL. 5
OXFORD SERIES OF DEVOTIONAL WORKS (continued).
Taylor’s Golden Grove.
THE GOLDEN GROVE; a Choice
Manual, containing what is to be Believed,
Practised, and Desired, or Prayed for. By
Bisuor JEREMY Taytor. Printed uniform
with ‘* Holy Living and Holy Dying.” An-
tique cloth, 3s. 6d.
Sutton’s Meditations.
GODLY MEDITATIONS UPON
THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE
LORD’S SUPPER. By CurisroPpHER SutT-
von, D.D., late Prebend of Westminster.
A new Edition. Antique cloth, 5s.
Laud’s Devotions.
THE PRIVATE DEVOTIONS of
Dr. Wittiam Lavup, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, and Martyr. Antique cloth, 5s.
Spinckes’ Devotions.
TRUE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
MAN’S COMPANION IN THE CLOSET;
or, a complete Manual of Private Devotions,
collected from the Writings of eminent Di-
vines of the Church of England. Antique
cloth, 4s.
Ancient Collects.
ANCIENT COLLECTS anp OTHER
PRAYERS. Selected for Devotional use
from various Rituals. By Wm. Bricurt,
D.D. Antique cloth, 5s.
Devout Communicant.
THE DEVOUT COMMUNICANT
exemplified in his Behaviour before, at, and
after the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper:
Practically suited to all the Parts of that
Solemn Ordinance. 7th Edition, revised.
Feap. 8vo., cloth, 4s.
EIKQN BASIAIKH.
THE PORTRAITURE OF HIS
SACRED MAJESTY KING CHARLES I.
in his Solitudes and Sufferings. New Edition,
with Preface by C.M.PxHitirmore [On the
evidence that the book was written by
Charles I., and not by Gauden]. Antique
cloth, 5s.
THE PASTOR IN HIS CLOSET; or, A Help to the Devotions
of the Clergy. By Joun Anmstrone, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Grahamstown.
Third Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 2s.
PRAYERS FOR MARRIED PERSONS. From Various Sources,
chiefly from the Ancient Liturgies.
Rector of Maulden.
cloth, 4s. 6d.
Selected and edited by CHARLES Warp,
Third Edition, with red lines on toned paper, 24mo.,
A CHEAP EDITION, on white paper. 24mo., cloth, 2s.6d.
DAILY STEPS TOWARDS HEAVEN;; or, Practical Thoughts on
the Gospel History, for every day in the year.
With Titles and Character of
Christ. Newly printed with antique type. 82mo., roan, gilt edges, 2s. 6d.;
morocco, ds.
antique, red edges, 5s.
LARGE TYPE EDITION. Square crown 8vo., cloth
THE HOURS; being Prayers for the Third, Sixth, and Ninth
Hours; with a Preface, and Heads of Devotion for the Day. Seventh Edition.
82mo., in parchment wrapper, 18.
ANNUS DOMINI. A Prayer for each Day of the Year, founded on
a Text of Holy Scripture (addressed to the Second Person in the Trinity, and
therefore supplementary to other devotions).
32mo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
By Curistina G. Rossetri.
PRIVATE PRAYERS FOR A WEEK. Compiled by Wit11am
Brieut, D.D., Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 96 pp., Feap. 8vo., limp
cloth, 15. 6d.
DEVOTIONS BEFORE AND AFTER HOLY COMMUNION.
With Prefatory Note by Kesue.
Sixth Edition, in red and black, on toned
paper, 82mo., cloth, 2s,—With the Service, 32mo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
6 DEVOTIONAL, SERMONS, ec.
DEVOTIONAL (continued). :
MEDITATIONS FOR THE FORTY DAYS OF LENT. With
a Prefatory Notice by the ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN. 18mo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
THE EVERY-DAY COMPANION. By the Rev. W. H. Rrptey,
M.A., Rector of Hambleden, Bucks. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 3s.
THOUGHTS DURING SICKNESS. By Rosertr Brerr, Author of
“The Doctrine of the Cross,” &c. Fcap. 8vo., limp cloth, 1s. 6d.
BREVIATES FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE, arranged for use by the
Bed of Sickness. By the Rev. G. Arpen, M.A., Rector of Winterborne-Came ;
Domestic Chaplain to the Right Hon. the Earl of Devon. 2nd Ed. Fcap. 8vo., 2s.
DEVOTIONS FOR A TIME OF RETIREMENT AND PRAYER
FOR THE CLERGY. New Edition, revised. Fecap. 8vo., cloth, 18.
PRAYERS IN USE AT CUDDESDON COLLEGE. Third Edition,
revised and enlarged. Fecap. 8vo., 2s.
INSTRUCTIONS ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST, AND DEVO-
TIONS FOR HOLY COMMUNION, being Part V. of the Clewer Mannals,
by Rev. T. T. Carrer, M.A., late Rector of Clewer. 18mo., cloth, 2s.
THE SERVICE-BOOK OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
arranged according to the New Table of Lessons. Crown 8vo., roan, 12s.;
and in various bindings.
SERMONS, &e.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF FAITH. Eight Plain Sermons, by the
late Rev. Epwarp Monro. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
Uniform, and by the same Author,
PLAIN SERMONS ON THE Book oF Com- | HISTORICAL AND PRACTICAL SERMONS
MON PRAYER. F cap. 8vo., cloth, 5s. ON THE SUFFERINGS AND RESUR-
SERMONS ON NEW TESTAMENT CHARAC-| RECTION OF OUR LORD. 2 vols., Fcap.
TERS. Fcap. 8vo., 4s. 8vo., cloth, 10s.
CHRISTIAN SEASONS.—Short and Plain Sermons for every Sunday
and Holyday throughout the Year. 4 vols., Feap. 8vo., cloth, 10s.—Second
Series, 4 vols., Feap. 8vo., cloth, 10s,
SHORT SERMONS FOR FAMILY READING, following the
Order of the Christian Seasons. By the Rev. J. W. Burcon, B.D. 2 vols.,
Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 8s.—Second Series, 2 vols., Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 8s.
PAROCHIAL SERMONS AND SERMONS FOR FASTS AND
FESTIVALS. By the late Bp. Anmstrone. Feap. 8vo., 5s. each volume.
SERMONS ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. By the late Rev. J.
ΚΈΒΙΕ, M.A. 8vo., cloth, 6s.
THE AWAKING SOUL, as Sketched in the 130th Psalm. Ad-
dresses delivered in Lent, 1877. By E. R. Witserrorce, M.A. [the Rt. Rev.
the Lord Bishop of Newcastle]. Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 2s. 6d.
OXFORD LENT SERMONS, 1857-60, 68, 65-69, 70-71. Cloth,
5s. each.
XX. SHORT ALLEGORICAL SERMONS. By B.K. W. Pearsz,
M.A., and W, A. Gray, M.A. Sixth Edition. Fcap. 8vo., sewed, 15.
SERMONS AND ESSAYS ON THE APOSTOLICAL AGE. By
the late Very Rev. ARTHUR PENRHYN STANLEY, D.D. Third Edition, revised.
Crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
ENGLISH DIVINES, 7
GHorks of the Standard Gnglish Divines,
PUBLISHED IN THE LIBRARY OF ANGLO-CATHOLIC THEOLOGY,
AT THE FOLLOWING PRICES IN CLOTH.
ANDREWES’ (BP.) COMPLETE WORKS. 11 vols., 8vo., £3 7s.
Tue Sermons. (Separate.) 5 vols., £1 15s.
BEVERIDGE’S (BP.) COMPLETE WORKS. 12 vols., 8vo., £4 4s.
Tue Eneiish ΤΉΒΟΙΠΟΘΙΟΑΙ, Works. 10 vols., £3 10s.
BRAMHALL’S (ABP.) WORKS, WITH LIFE AND LETTERS, &c.
5 vols., 8vo., £1 15s. (Vol. 2 cannot be sold separately.)
BULL’S (BP.) HARMONY ON JUSTIFICATION. 2 vols., 8vo., 10s.
DEFENCE OF THE NICENE CREED. 2 vols., 10s.
JUDGMENT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. is.
COSIN’S (BP.) WORKS COMPLETE. 5 vols., 8vo., £1 10s.
ee Ge el DEFENSIO ECCLESLEZ ANGLICANA.
VO., 7S.
FRANK’S SERMONS. 2 vols., 8vo., 10s.
FORBES’ CONSIDERATIONES MODESTA. 2 vols., 8vo., 12s.
GUNNING’S PASCHAL, OR LENT FAST. 8vo., 6s.
HAMMOND’S PRACTICAL CATECHISM. 8vo., ds.
MISCELLANEOUS THEOLOGICAL WORKS. 5s.
THIRTY-ONE SERMONS. 2 Parts. 10s.
HICKES’S TWO TREATISES ON THE CHRISTIAN PRIEST-
HOOD. 3 vols., 8vo., 15s.
JOHNSON’S (JOHN) THEOLOGICAL WORKS. 2 vols., 8vo., 10s.
ENGLISH CANONS. 2 vols., 12s.
LAUD’S (ABP.) COMPLETE WORKS. 7 vols., (9 Parts,) 8vo.,
£2 17s.
L’ESTRANGE’S ALLIANCE OF DIVINE OFFICES. 8vo., 6s.
MARSHALL’S PENITENTIAL DISCIPLINE. (This volume
cannot be sold separate from the complete set.)
NICHOLSON’S (BP.) EXPOSITION OF THE CATECHISM. (This
volume cannot be sold separate from the complete set.)
OVERALL’S (BP.) CONVOCATION-BOOK OF 1606. 8vo., 5s.
PEARSON’S (BP.) VINDICLZ EPISTOLARUM 8. IGNATII.
2 vols. 8vo., 10s,
THORNDIKE’S (HERBERT) THEOLOGICAL WORKS COM-
PLETE. 6 vols.,(10 Parts,) 8vo., £2 10s.
WILSON’S (BP.) WORKS COMPLETE. With LIFE, by the
late Rev. J. Kesue. 7 vols., (8 Parts,) 8vo., £3 3s.
A complete set, 80 Vols. in 88 Parts, £21.
8 POETRY, δε.
».
THE AUTHORIZED EDITIONS OF
THE CHRISTIAN YEAR,
With the Author’s latest Corrections and Additions.
NOTICE.—Messrs, Parker are the sole Publishers of the Editions of the
‘‘Christian Year’? issued with the sanction and under the direction of the
Author’s representatives. All Editions without their imprint are unauthorized,
SMALL 4to. EpITIon. 5. d. 82mo. EDITION. 8. a.
Handsomely printed on toned Cloth boards, gilt edges ,. ΔΑ
paper, with red border lines Cloth, limp . δ . . Ὁ Ὁ
and initial letters.. Cloth ᾿
extra 5 Ξ ν᾽ ..10..Ὁ 48mo. EDITION.
i . . . . 6
Demy 8vo. EpiTIon. say Heap δ : ge ; 6
Cloth . ᾿ ᾿ Ἶ δ νθι. ἢ
" FAcsIMILE OF THE Ist ΕΡ1-
OOLSCAP 8vo. EDITION. TION, with a list of the
Cloth . ; 4 A 88 variations from the Origi-
nal Text which the Author
24mo. Epition. made in later Editions.
Cloth, red lines. : ; 2s 2 vols., 12mo., boards o. oe Ἢ
The above Editions (except the Facsimile of the First Edition) are kept in
a variety of bindings, which may be ordered through the Trade, or direct from
the Publishers. The chief bindings are Morocco plain, Morocco Antique, Calf
Antique, and Vellum, the prices varying according to the style.
By the same Author.
LYRA INNOCENTIUM. Thoughts in Verse on Christian Chil-
dren. Thirteenth Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 5s.
24mo., cloth, red lines, 3s. 6d.
48mo. edition, limp cloth, 6d.; cloth boards, 1s.
MISCELLANEOUS POEMS BY THE REV. JOHN KEBLE, M.A.,
Vicar of Hursley. [With Preface by G.M.] Third Edition. Fcap., cloth, 6s.
THE PSALTER, OR PSALMS OF DAVID: In English Verse.
Fourth Edition. Fcap., cloth, 6s.
18mo., cloth, Is.
The above may also be had in various bindings.
A CONCORDANCE TO THE “CHRISTIAN YEAR.” Feap.
8vo., toned paper, cloth, 4s.
MUSINGS ON THE “CHRISTIAN YEAR;” wire GLEANINGS
FRoM Tuirty YxEARs’ INTERCOURSE WITH THE LATE Rev, J. KEBLE, by CHAR-
LOTTE M. YONGE; to which are added Recollections of Hursley, by
FRANCES M. WILBRAHAM. Second Edition. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
MEMOIR OF THE REV. J. KEBLE, M.A. By Sir J. T. Cotr-
RIDGE. Fourth and Cheaper Edition. Post 8vo., cloth, 6s.
THE CHILD’S CHRISTIAN YEAR. Hymns for every Sunday
and Holyday throughout the Year. Cheap Edition, 18mo., cloth, 1s.
͵ ΝΕ TS ie ee
CHURCH POETRY, AND PAROCHIAL. 9
Church Poetry.
REV. ISAAC WILLIAMS.
Uniform Edition, 32mo., cloth, each 2s. 6d.
THE CATHEDRAL; or, The | THE CHRISTIAN SCHOLAR.
Catholic and Apostolic Church in| HYMNS prom τὴν PARISIAN
England.
THE BAPTISTERY; or, The| BREVIARY.
Way of Eternal Life. THOUGHTS IN PAST YEARS.
THE SEVEN DAYS OF THE OLD AND NEW CREATION.
Feap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d. :
THE BAPTISTERY; or, The Way of Eternal Life. With Plates by
Boretius A Botswert. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
BISHOP CLEVELAND COXE,
CHRISTIAN BALLADS AND POEMS. By Arruvr Crevetanp
Coxe, D.D., Bishop of Western New York. 4 New Edition. Feap. 8vo.,
cloth, 3s. Also selected Poems in a packet, 32mo., ls.
THE BELLS OF BOTTEVILLE TOWER; A Christmas Story in
Verse: and other Poems. By Freperick G. Lee, Author of “ The Martyrs of
Vienne and Lyons,” ““ Petronilla,’’ &c. Feap. 8vo., with Illustrations, cloth, 4s.6d.
HYMNS ON THE LITANY, by Ava Campriper. Fcap. 8vo., cl., 3s.
THE INNER LIFE. Hymns on the ‘Imitation of Christ,” by
Tuomas A’Kempis; designed especially for Use at Holy Communion. By the
Author of “ Thoughts from a Girl’s Life,” &c. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 3s.
Parochial.
THE CONFIRMATION CLASS-BOOK: Notes for Lessons, with
APPENDIX, containing Questions and Summaries for the Use of the Candidates.
By E. M. Houmes, LL.B. Feap. 8vo., limp cloth, 2s. 6d.
Also, THE Questions AND SUMMARIES separate, 4 sets, 1s. each.
THE CATECHIST’S MANUAL; with an Introduction by the late
SamvreL WiLBerForce, D.D., Lord Bishop of Winchester. By the same.
Sixth Thousand, revised. Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 5s.
SUNDAY -SCHOOL EXERCISES, Collected and Revised from
Manuscripts of Burghclere School-children, under the teaching of the Rev. W.
R. Barter, late Rector of Highclere and Burghclere; Edited by his Son-in-law,
the Bisnor or St. ANDREW’s. Second Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 5s.
A MANUAL OF PASTORAL VISITATION, intended for the Use
of the Clergy in their Visitation of the Sick and Afflicted. By a Parisu Priest.
Dedicated, by permission, to His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin. Second
Edition. Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 3s. 6d.; roan, 4s.
SHORT READINGS FOR SUNDAY. By the Author of ‘ Foot-
prints in the Wilderness.”” With Twelve Illustrations on Wood. Third Thou-
sand. Square Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
FABER’S STORIES FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. With Four
Illustrations. Square Crown 8vo., cloth, 4s.
A SERIES OF WALL PICTURES illustrating the New Testament.
The Set of 16 Pictures, size 22 inches by 19 inches, 12s.
COTTAGE PICTURES FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT.
A Series of Twenty-eight large folio Engravings, brilliantly coloured by hand,
The Set, 7s. 6d.— Also from THE NEW TESTAMENT. A Series of Twenty-
eight. Uniform. The Set, 7s. 6d.
Upwards of 8,000 Sets of these Oottage Pictwres have been sold. |
TWELVE SACRED PRINTS FOR PAROCHIAL USE, Printed
in Sepia, with Ornamental Borders. The Set, One Shilling; or each, One Penny,
Upwards of 100,000 of these Prints have already been sold.
ao
10 UISCELLANEOUS.
R. GODFREY FAUSSETT, M.A.
THE SYMMETRY OF TIME: being an Outline of Biblical Chron-
~ ology adapted to a Continuous Succession of Weeks of Years. From the
Creation of Adam to the Exodus, By R. Goprrey Faussurt, M.A., Student
of Christ Church. Demy 4to., in wrapper, 10s. 6d.
THE ELEMENTS OF PSYCHOLOGY.
THE ELEMENTS OF PSYCHOLOGY, ON THE PRINCIPLES
OF BENEKE, Stated and Illustrated in a Simple and Popular Manner by
Dr. G. Rave, Professor in the Medical College, Philadelphia ; Fourth Edition,
considerably Altered, Improved, and Enlarged, by JoHANN GOTTLIEB DRESS-
LER, late Director of the Normal School at Bautzen. Translated from the
German. Post 8vo., cloth, 6s.
REV. CANON GREGORY.
ARE WE BETTER THAN OUR FATHERS? or, A Comparative
View of the Social Position of England at the Revolution of 1688, and at the
Present Time. FOUR LECTURES delivered in St. Paul’s Cathedral. By
RoBeRt GREGORY, M.A., Canon of St. Paul’s. Crown 8vo., 2s. 6d.
PROFESSOR GOLDWIN SMITH.
IRISH HISTORY AND IRISH CHARACTER. Cheap Edition.
Feap. 8vo., sewed, 15. 6d.
LECTURES ON THE STUDY OF HISTORY. Delivered in
Oxford, 1859—61. Second Edition. Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 3s. 6d.
THE REORGANIZATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.
By Gotpwin Situ. Post 8vo., limp cloth, 2s.
THE EMPIRE. A Series of Letters published in ‘‘The Daily
News,’’ 1862, 1863. Post 8vo., cloth, price 6s.
MRS. ALGERNON KINGSFORD.
ROSAMUNDA THE PRINCESS: An Historical Romance of the
Sixth Century; the Crocus, WATER-REED, Rose and MARIGOLD, PAINTER OF
Venice, ΝΌΒΙΕ Love, Romance of a Ring, and other Tales. By Mrs. ALGER-
Non KinGsForRD. 8vo., cloth, with Twenty-four Illustrations, 6s.
THE AUTHOR OF ‘‘CHARLES LOWDER,” ‘‘LIFE OF 5. TERESA,” &c.
THE EXILE FROM PARADISE, translated by the Author of the
“ Life of S. Teresa.’’ Fcap., cloth, 1s. 6d.
VILHELM THOMSEN.
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN ANCIENT RUSSIA AND SCAN-
DINAVIA, and the Origin of the Russian State THREE LECTURES de-
livered at the Taylor Institution, Oxford, in May, 1876, by Dr. VituEtm
THOMSEN, Professor at the University of Copenhagen. Small 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
BERNARD BOSANQUET, M.A.
ATHENIAN CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY, as Represented in
Grote’s ‘‘ History of Greece,’’ critically examined by G. F. ScHdmMann: Trans-
lated, with the Author’s permission, by BERNARD BosaNnaqueEt, M.A., Fellow
and Tutor of University College, Oxford. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
E. C. PHILLIPS,
THE ORPHANS. By E. C. Puiiies. Author of ‘ Bunchy,”
‘“‘ Birdie and her Dog,’’ ‘‘ Hilda and her Doll,” ‘ Meyrick’s Promise,” &c.
Third Edition, revised by the Author, with eight full-page Illustrations.
Square crown 8vo., cloth, 4s,
ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHHZOLOGY. 11
REV. J.C. BLOMFIELD, M.A.
HISTORY OF THE PRESENT DEANERY OF BICESTER,
OXON. Compiled by J. C. Buomrienp, M.A., Rector of Launton, and Rural
Dean. 84 pp. Medium 4to., in wrapper, with Plans and Woodcuts, 5s.
SIR G. G. SCOTT, F.S.A.
GLEANINGS FROM WESTMINSTER ABBEY. By Sim Grorez
Ginsert Scott, R.A., F.S.A. With Appendices supplying Further Particu-
lars, and completing the History of the Abbey Buildings, by Several Writers.
Second Edition, enlarged, containing many new Illustrations by O. Jewitt and
others. Medium 8vo., 10s. 6d.
‘THE LATE CHARLES WINSTON.
AN INQUIRY INTO THE DIFFERENCE OF STYLE OBSERV-
ABLE IN ANCIENT GLASS PAINTINGS, especially in England, with
Hints on Glass Painting, by the late CoarLes Winston. With Corrections and
Additions by the Author. 2 vols., Medium $vo., cloth, £1 11s. 6d.
M. VIOLLET-LE-DUC.
THE MILITARY ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES.
Translated from the French of M. Viottet-Le-Duc, by M. Macpermort, Esgq.,
Architect. With 151 original French Engravings. Second Hédition, with a Pre-
face by J. H. Parker, C.B. Medium 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
JOHN HEWITT.
ANCIENT ARMOUR AND WEAPONS IN EUROPE. By Jonny
Hewitt. 3 vols., 8vo., £1 Ils. 6d.
PROFESSOR STUBBS,
THE TRACT “DE INVENTIONE SANCTA CRUCIS NOSTRA
IN MONTE ACUTO ET DE DUCTIONE EJUSDEM APUD WALT-
HAM,” now first printed from the Manuscript in the British Museum, with In-
troduction and Notes by Witt1am Stusss, M.A. Royal 8vo., 5s.; Demy 8vo.,
85. 6d.
THE PRAYER-BOOK CALENDAR,
THE CALENDAR OF THE PRAYER-BOOK ILLUSTRATED.
(Comprising the first portion of the ‘*Calendar of the Anglican Church,’”’ with
additional Illustrations, an Appendix on Emblems, &c.) With Two Hundred
Engravings from Medieval Works of Art. Sixth Thousand. Feap, 8vo., cl., 6s.
Σ OUR ENGLISH HOME:
Its Early History and Progress. With Notes on the Introduction of
Domestic Inventions. New Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
PARISH CHURCH GOODS IN A.D. 1552.
INVENTORIES OF FURNITURE and Ornaments remaining in
certain of the Parish Churches of Berks in the last year of the reign of King
Edward the Sixth: Transcribed from the Original Records, with Introduction and
Explanatory Notes by Wattex Money, F.S.A. Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 3s. 6d.
INVENTORY OF FURNITURE and Ornaments in HERTFORD-
SHIRE, in the last year of the Reign of Edward VI. By J. E, Cussans.
Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 48. :
12 ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHZOLOGY.
—_—
JOHN HENRY PARKER, C.B., F.8.A., HON. M.A. OXON.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF GOTHIC ARCHI-
TECTURE. Sixth Edition, Revised and Enlarged, with 200 Illustrations,
with a Topographical and Glossarial Index. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, ds.
A CONCISE GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN GRECIAN,
ROMAN, ITALIAN, AND GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE. A New
Edition, revised. Fcap. 8vo., with 470 Illustrations, in ornamental cloth, 7s. 6d.
ABC OF GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE. Third Edition, with
Index, square 16mo., with 200 Woodcuts, cloth, 8s.
** Architectural History can only be understood by the eyes—either by seeing the buildings
themselves, or accurate representations of them arranged in chronological order :—this latter
has been attempted in the present work.”
AN ATTEMPT TO DISCRIMINATE THE STYLES OF AR-
CHITECTURE IN ENGLAND, from the Conquest to the Reformation ;
with a Sketch of the Grecian and Roman Orders. By the late THomas Rick-
MAN, F.S.A. Seventh Edition, with considerable Additions, chiefly Historical,
8vo., cloth, 16s.
DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES, FROM
THE CONQUEST TO HENRY VIII. By the late T. Hupson Turner
and Joun Henry Parker, C.B. Second Edition. 4 vols., 8vo., ~ profusely
Illustrated with nearly 400 Wood and Steel Ep Erarings, full General and Topo-
graphical Indices, &c., cloth, gilt top, £3 12s.
THE ARCHAOLOGY OF ROME.
With Plates, Plans, and Diagrams,
Part 1. PRIMITIVE FORTIFICATIONS. Second Edition, 8vo.,
with 59 Plates, cloth, 21s.
Part 2. WALLS AND GATES. Second Edition, nearly ready.
Part ὃ. CONSTRUCTION OF WALLS. § Second Edit., in the Press.
Part 4. THE EGYPTIAN OBELISKS. Second Edition, 8vo., cl., 5s.
Part 5. THE FORUM ROMANUM ET MAGNUM. Second Eiit.,
Revised and Enlarged, 41 Plates. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
Part 6. THE VIA SACRA, was originally published with Part 5, it
will now be separated, and the New Edition is nearly ready, with Toe TEMPLE
or Roma, THE Caput Vim Sacra#, Sacellum Strenize, &c.—Also a complete
account of the Excavations in Rome from a.p. 1485 to the Present Time.
Part 7. THE COLOSSEUM. 36 Plates, 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
Part 8. THE AQUEDUCTS OF ANCIENT ROME. 21 Plates,
8vo., cloth, 15s.
Part 9. TOMBS IN AND NEAR ROME, and 10. FUNEREAL
AND EARLY CHRISTIAN SCULPTURE. 389 Plates, 8vo., cloth, 15s.
Part 11. CHURCH AND ALTAR DECORATIONS AND MOSAIC
PICTURES IN ROME. 20 Plates, 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
Part 12. THE CATACOMBS OF ROME. 8vo., cloth, 15s.
Part 18. EARLY AND MEDLAIVAL CASTLES. early ready.
Part 14. THE MEDIA;VAL CHURCHES. Wearly ready.
THE ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY OF THE CITY OF ROME,
abridged from Mr. Parker’s ‘‘ Archeology of Rome.” For Students. Second
Edition. Post 8vo., cloth, with Plan of Rome and 34 pp. of Illustrations, 6s.
ee ee Fe τν ..τὰΣ
NEW AND STANDARD EDUCATIONAL WORKS. 13
THE ANNALS OF ENGLAND. An Epitome of English History.
From Cotemporary Writers, the Rolls of Parliament, and other Public Records.
A LIBRARY EDITION, revised and enlarged, with additional Woodcuts.
8vo., half-bound, 12s.
THE SCHOOL EDITION OF THE ANNALS OF ENGLAND.
In Five Half-crown Parts. 1. Britons, Romans, Saxons, Normans. 2. The
Plantagenets. 3. The Tudors. 4. The Stuarts. 5. The Restoration, to the
Death of Queen Anne. F cap. 8vo., cloth.
THE NEW SCHOOL-HISTORY OF ENGLAND, from Early
Writers and the National Records. By the Author of *‘ The Annals of England.”
Crown 8vo., with Four Maps, limp cloth, 5s.; Coloured Maps, half roan, 6s.
A HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH from its Foundation
to the Reign of Queen Mary. By M.C.Sraprey. Fourth Edition, revised.
Crown 8vo., cloth boards, 5s.
POETARUM SCENICORUM GRAICORUM, Aschyli, Sophoclis,
Euripidis, et Aristophanis, Fabule, Superstites, et Perditarum Fragmenta. Ex
recognitione GUIL. DINDORFII. Editio Quinta. Royal 8vo., cloth, £1 Is.
THUCYDIDES, with Notes, chiefly Historical and Geographical.
By the lateT. AkNotp, D.D. With Indices by the late Rev. R. P. G. Tippeman.
Eighth Edition. 3 vols., 8vo., cloth lettered, £1 16s.
JELF’S GREEK GRAMMAR.—A Grammar of the Greek Language,
chiefly from the text of Raphael Kiihner. By Wm. Epw. Jextr, B.D. Fifth
Edition, with Additions and Corrections. 2 vols. 8vo., £1 10s.
MADVIG’S LATIN GRAMMAR, A Latin Grammar for the Use
of Schools. By Professor Mapvie, with additions by the Author. Translated
by the Rey. G. Woops, M.A. New Edition, with an Index of Authors. 8vo.,
cloth, 12s.
ERASMI COLLOQUIA SELECTA: Arranged for Translation and
Re-translation ; adapted for the Use of Boys who have begun the Latin Syntax.
By Epwarp C, Lows, D.D., Canon of Ely, and Provost of the College of
SS. Mary and John, Lichfield. Feap. 8vo., strong binding, 3s.
PORTA LATINA: A Selection from Latin Authors, for Translation
and Re-Translation; arranged in a Progressive Course, as an Introduction to
the Latin Tongue. By Epwarp C. Lows, D.D., Editor of Erasmus’ ‘‘ Collo- .
quies,’’ ὅσ. Feap. 8vo., strongly bound, 3s.
A GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS OF THE HEBREW PSALTER;
being an Explanatory Interpretation of Every Word contained in the Book of
Psalms, intended chiefly for the Use of Beginners in the Study of Hebrew. By
JOANA JULIA GRESWELL. Post 8vo., cloth, 6s.
A FIRST LOGIC BOOK, by Ὁ. P. Cuasz, M.A., Principal of
St. Mary Hall, Oxford. Small 4to., sewed, 3s.
NEW AND OLD METHODS OF ETHICS, by F. Y. Enczworrs.
8vo., sewed, 2s.
Uniform with the Oxford Pocket Classics.
LAWS OF THE GREEK ACCENTS. By Joun Grirrirus, D.D.,
Warden of Wadham College, Oxford. Sixteenth Edition. 16mo., price 6d.
RUDIMENTARY RULES, with Examples, for the Use of Beginners
in Greek Prose Composition. By Bishop Mrtcurnson, D.C.L., late Head Master
of the King’s School, Canterbury, 16mo., sewed, 1s.
TWELVE RUDIMENTARY RULES FOR LATIN PROSE COM-
POSITION: with Examples and Exercises, for the use of Beginners. By the
Rev. E.Moorz,D.D., Principalof St.Edmund Hall, Oxford. Second Edit.16mo.,6d.
THE ACCIDENCE or raz: GREEK VERB TAUGHT THROUGH
INFLEXIONS ano ANALYSIS. By S.J. Hutme, M.A., formerly Fellow
and Tutor of Wadham College, Oxford; Rector of Bourton -on-the-Water,
Gloucestershire. 126 pp. 16mo., in wrapper, 18.
14 OXFORD POCKET CLASSICS.
A SERIES OF GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS
FOR THE USE OF SCHOOLS.
GREEK POETS.
Cloth. Cloth.
8 da. 4, ἃ,
Hischylus . . > 3 0 Sophocles . ae ; se
Aristophanes. 2 vols. . 6 0 Homeri Ilias ; : - & 6
Euripides. 3 vols. 6 6 Odyssea Re: Sok
—— Tragedix Sex 3 6
GREEK PROSE WRITERS.
Aristotelis Ethica . . 2 0| Thucydides. 2volss . . 5 O
Demosthenes de Corona, et 2 0 Xenophontis Memorabilia . 1 4
Aischines in Ctesiphontem — Anabasis . Ss Se,
Herodotus. 2 vols, ‘ ia Ὁ
LATIN POETS.
Horatius ‘ ὴ . 2 0| Lucretius. Ξ , Ὁ 2
Juvenalis et Persius . . 1 6 Phedrus i : : Ps ὑπ
Lucanus : ὅ . . 2 6 | Virgilius 3 ᾽ : «BA
LATIN PROSE WRITERS.
Cesaris Commentarii, cum Sup- Ciceronis Tuse. Disp. Lib. V. 2 0
plementisAuliHirtiiet aliorum 2 6 | Ciceronis Orationes Selecte . 3 6
Commentarii de Bello Cornelius Nepos . ; 1 4
Gallico . 1 6 Livius. 4 vols. . δ᾽.
Cicero De Oficiis, de Senectute, Sallustius . A : ἀκ oe
et de Amicitia . : 2 0 Tacitus. 2 vols. . ; . Ὸ
TEXTS WITH SHORT NOTES.
UNIFORM WITH THE SERIES OF “OXFORD POCKET CLASSICS.”
GREEK WRITERS. TEXTS AND NOTES.
SOPHOCLES.
eae He Hs is
Asax (Text and Notes) ᾿ς . 1 0,4 Antigone ( Test and nee . oe
ELECTRA μὴ Ξ - 1 Ὁ 1 ῬΗΣΘΟΥΒΤΕΒ,, ,.» ὲ .. Ὁ
(Epirus Rex ,, - Ἶ 1 0] TRAcHINIZ Ἢ > ‘ | a
CEpipus CoLoNEwus ,, ° Ὧν τ
The Notes only, in one vol., cloth, 3s.
ZESCHYLUS.,
Persz& (Text and Notes) . . 1 0 | CnoerpHor#z (Text and Notes) . 1 0
PRoMETHEUS VINCTUS » « Lk O | EuMENIDES » ‘ + ae
SepTeEM CoNTRA THEBAS ,, . 1 0 | SUFPLICES ” ° “1 τὖ
AGAMEMNON sh a oe
The Notes only, in one vol., cloth, 3s. 6d.
ARISTOPHANES.
Tue Kniouts (Text and Notes) 1 0 | Acnarnians (Zeat and Notes) 1 0
0
Tue Birps (Test and Notes)
NEW SERIES OF ENGLISH NOTES. 15
EURIPIDES.
6. ἃ: s. d.
Hecusa (Text and Notes) . 1.00 Puaniss# (Text and Notes) . 1 O
MEDEA - ᾿ ὶ . 1.0] AtceEstiIs iF or 8
ORESTES ᾿ " ἃ Es? ye 9 The above, Notes only, in one vol., cloth, 3s.
Hiprotytus 4, ὁ «+ « Ll 0O| Baccnaz « oy Ὁ
DEMOSTHENES.
De Corona (Text and Notes) . 2 O|Onynrutac Orations . “og 314]
HOMERWUS. XENOPHON.
Inras, Lis. 1.—vi. (Text and MemoraBILia (Text and Notes) 2 6
Notes) . . . . . 8. ARISTOTLE.
AESCHINES. De ArtTE Poetica (Text and
In CresipHONTEM (Text and Notes) . cloth, 2s.; sewed1l 6
Notes) ; ° ‘ » 2. 0} De Re Pertica.. ,.. 38, Pies Se
LATIN WRITERS. TEXTS AND NOTES.
VIRGILIUS.
Bucotrica (Text and Notes) . 1 Ο[ AineIvos, Lis. 1.—111. (Text
GEORGICA ἡ a2 9 and Notes) . . eon Ὁ
HORATIUS.
Carmina, &c. (Text and Notes) 2 0 Epistotra# et Ars Pogtica (Test
SATIRE Ὗ ἜΝ κι and Notes) . ° . τ...
The Notes only, in one vol., cloth, 2s.
SALLUSTIUS.
Jucurrua (Text and Notes) . 1 6 CarixiNa (Text and Notes) « 120
M.T. CICERO.
In Q. Ca&ciL1iumM— DIVINATIO In CatininaM (Text and Notes) 1 0
(Text and Notes) . ° 1 τι LE ROcPLANCSO... A ᾿ “τ
In Verrem AcTio Prima - 1 0} Pro Mitone . ‘ . xk
Pro Lege Maniuia, et Pro Pro Roscio ., i J inne Ὁ
ARCHIA ὃ Ὰ Ξ . 1 0 ΟΒΑΤΙΟΝΕΒ Puitiprica,I.,II. 1 6
The above, Notes only, in one vol., cloth, 3s. 6d.
De Senectutreet De Amicitia 1 0 Epistot# Setecta. ParsI. 1 6
CASAR. CORNELIUS NEPOS.
De Betto Gatuico, Lis, 1.—111. Lives (Text and Notes) . . 1 6
(Text and Notes) . ᾿ eon. Ὁ PHEDRUS.
LIVIUS. FaBuLz (Teat and Notes) q F 0
Lis. xx1.—xxiv.(Text and Notes) TACITUS.
sewed . . . . . 4 0] THe ANNALS. Notes only, 2 vols.,
Ditto in cloth . s ᾽ . 4 6 1θηιο., cloth . ‘ ‘ 2
Portions of several other Authors are in preparation,
Uniform with the Oxford Pocket Classics.
THE LIVES OF THE MOST EMINENT ENGLISH POETS,
WITH CRITICAL OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR WORKS. By Sa-
MUEL JOHNSON. 38 vols., 24mo., cloth, 2s. 6d. each.
THE LIVES OF DRYDEN AND POPE, with Critical Observations
on their Works. By Samuext Jounson. 24mo., cloth, 1s. 6d.
THE SIX CHIEF LIVES OF THE POETS: MILTON, DRYDEN,
SWIFT, ADDISON, POPE, ann GRAY. By S.Jounson. 24mo., cloth, 88.
CHOICE EXTRACTS FROM MODERN FRENCH AUTHORS,
for the use of Schools. 18mo., cloth, ls,
δ΄ BOOKS, ὅο.,, RELATING TO OXFORD.
SELECTIONS from the RECORDS of the CITY OF OXFORD,
with Extracts from other Documents illustrating the Municipal History :
Henry VIII. to Elizabeth [1509—1583]. Edited, by authority of the Cor-
poration of the City of Oxford, by the late Witt1am H. Turner, of the
Bodleian Library; under the direction of Rospert S. Hawkins, late Town
Clerk. Royal 8vo., cloth, £1 1s.
A HANDBOOK FOR VISITORS TO OXFORD. Illustrated with
numerous Woodcuts by Jewitt, and Steel Plates by Le Keux. 4 New Edition.
8vo., cloth, 12s.
THE VISITOR’S GUIDE TO OXFORD. With 110 Illustrations
and a coloured Plan. Post 8vo., in ornamental wrapper, 1s. ; cloth, 25.
THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY CALENDAR for 1882. Corrected
to the end of December, 1881. 12mo., cloth, 4s. 6d.
THE OXFORD TEN-YEAR BOOK: A Complete Register of Uni-
versity Honours and Distinctions, made up to the end of the Year 1870.
Crown 8vo., roan, 5s.
WYKEHAMICA : a History of Winchester College and Commoners,
from the Foundation to the Present Day. By the Rev. H.C. ADAMS, M.A.,
late Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Post 8vo., cloth, 508 pp., with
Nineteen Illustrations, 10s. 6d.
HISTORICAL TALES
Illustrating the Chief Events in Ecclesiastical History, British and Foreign.
29 Numbers at One Shilling each, limp cloth; or arranged in
Six Volumes, cloth lettered, 3s. Gd. each.
ADDITIONAL VOLUMES TO THE SERIES.
ENGLAND: Medieval Period. Containing The Orphan of Evesham, or The
Jews and the Mendicant Orders.—Mark’s Wedding, or Lollardy.—The White
Rose of Lynden, or The Monks and the Bible.—The Prior’s Ward, or The
Broken Unity of the Church. By the Rev. H. C. Apams, Vicar of Dry Sand-
ford; Author of “ Wilton of Cuthbert’s,’’ ‘Schoolboy Honour,” &c. With Four
Illustrations on Wood. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
THE ANDREDS-WEALD, or THE HOUSE OF MICHELHAM: A Tale of
the Norman Conquest. By the Rev. A. D. Crake, B.A., Fellow of the Royal
Historical Society ; Author of “ Aimilius,” “ Alfgar the Dane,” &c. With Four
Illustrations by Louisa TayLor. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
CHEAPER ISSUE OF TALES FOR YOUNG MEN
AND WOMEN.
In Six Half-crown Vols., cloth.
Vol. I. contains F. E. Pacer’s Mother and Son, Wanted a Wife, and Hobson’s
Choice. ἢ
Vol. II. F. E. Pacer’s Windycote Hall, Squitch, Tenants at Tinkers’ End.
Vol. 111. W. E. Heyearte’s Two Cottages, The Sisters, and Old Jarvis’s Will.
Vol. 1V. W. E. Heyoeare’s James Bright the Shopman, The Politician, Ir-
revocable.
Vol. V. R. Kine’s The Strike, and Jonas Clint; N. Brown’s Two to One, and
False Honour.
Vol. VI. J. M. Neate’s Railway Accident; E. Monro’s The Recruit, Susan,
Servants’ Influence, Mary Thomas, or Dissent at Evenly ; H. HaymMan’s Caroline
Elton, or Vanity and Jealousy.
Each Volume is bound as a distinct and complete work, and sold
separately for PRESENTS.
Π]
ΣΝ
i.)
artes
£
aes ΙΕ
University of Toronto
Acme Library Card Pocket
LOWE-MARTIN CO, LIMITED
“ὦ.
i
°090 προ OELOUYSy 9851 FO
quewespnp 3: S “TO, sSytOy **dg * θϑχοθῃ' *TINg
ASOLO DFLOUZSo-OTAUy 29 Arsig τη
ZTOS
= ΘΝ
δος
SS
Saat Sigs Sse ee
θεν τ
͵ te ;
a)
SAE
at
x <4
τε a Se XS ἐξ
ἐξ τ ας εκ { “ee
Pee Ἢ a! +53 Ἢ
eH iat ve! τ
tet Ast x SP ‘ Pa 5
a * <x At ἐξ
Paras Cte
Che
ae 4 rp
Pa) . Re
TA,
»"
»
τ
=
gtgnre
SCE
aa
*
ὌΝ Oy
SD sear reed
a,
yes
a
rs
Ne
Pee
Ἔα ΕΣ
τέ ade
-
Shs
ὯΝ
ὑφ"
Seog
sae
CRS
See
ΗΟ
ΟΣ οὖν, a Pn
Ἂν τ δ.
»»-.
xx
%
ὡς eas
ἐπ es & {ὃς
<A AAAS “AS τ τος
COn eae, LS ANE
SSeS ICSE
ah
(ohn ok
x
MOA:
es
Sn,
τ
OG
<>
aPaPar pt orens
*
a
ae
ee
A ae
“ἃ.
Par
“4
yar
eas
*
LS ὡς ἃς
>
we
OR ety
as
ara es
Party's
ah,
Ca
aks
ys
x
PS ee τι
Craton
τ
ΡΨ
χορ
Yarns
Ae.
a
os
A. the Ante
cos
Ox
oes
Ὁ»
woe
~
ry:
Sk
(ἐκ ες
Ce
“ἔς
ἊΝ
Sy
er
os
γι
*.
oh te ols the
δ
A te te A
res
Ao
xe
ὡς
ἐπ
SEX
"κ΄
ΠΟΥ Ν
Ἢ
Ὁ
τὴς
ξ
Δ
τἀ Π
~
x)
US
“ἐξ
ἰῷ
ROR
<a
ΣΌΣ G ¢
aes < ete
<
4
cor Ν
HERES
Cd
εἷς
«Ἐπ ες
ἑοῖς ἕο,
acta!
ον
«ἀκ AS
ACY {4
{τ
X Rok
ΡΣ ΣῊ
8
it
zt,
ALS
~
bye a
Ae
tS
ie ἐκ,
At
ἘΣ
Gk
ot
x Soe
A ae
S προ μι
δ Ne a epee
ey Ux
a F
AO, Μ »
Er
: aby
Wak ᾿
BP at ne
A
a} oF) 4g
<* ε λ
ΟΝ piety?)
᾿ξ “¢*4
ASS CEG
<8 CEA
ees ΔΎ ΡΣ δ, νον
ie QE
τὰ ea
eg
MSN
~ SESE
4)
Paha? (ς
CES
ata? >:
Se
tis
ot »
ἐξ
+
14444
ἬΝ 4
> . > iat 4
4 442 2
€
ttt
4,4.
CG
>
¢
*
i a
AE ch
ee ss
-"
PA!
ae
+.
J
HEH
ee
2)
δ
BH SNE
ate teh
he
«
*
«:
τ,
Satelite
3, ete
. τ
PPS? Py s2irs
4
᾿ 4 1) «
sae ; SPH mh seetetatetats
<
ν 4 Ἢ <
4 054 (4 4 44 ,
Ὁ tt et t,t,
ἘΣΤΟΝ MEE ESE
ἐς
{}
τς
RS
hy)
SSeS:
τς εἶς
Mies
Hee
eet Ἢ
Peis?
τε
t
ὁ ἐς. (
4
RCN NS
ΤΣ toes bey
+
+4
ae
*
x
4
ΣΑΣ ΥΣΟΣΟΣ Στ
Setetafeistetote
=O tore ξὺς 9
πε ἐπ εν γε) ais eae ede
ΟΝ 4 ΟΣ
424454 ἊΣ LPS! ass
Setefefetets sree 4,4 SAA AAS taht ht
ΩΨ
fe
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11